NPT Review Conference Commences Amidst Deepening Geopolitical Rifts and Eroding Trust in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Framework
Introduction
The upcoming review conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), scheduled to begin on April 27 at the United Nations in New York, convenes at a time of heightened tensions among nuclear-armed states and growing concerns over the treaty's efficacy. Previous conferences have failed to produce consensus declarations, and current geopolitical dynamics suggest a similar outcome is possible.
Main Body
The NPT, ratified by nearly all nations except Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, is founded on a bargain: non-nuclear states forgo weapons in exchange for disarmament commitments from nuclear-weapon states and access to peaceful nuclear technology. The upcoming meeting follows two consecutive review conferences in 2015 and 2022 that ended without final political declarations. The 2015 deadlock stemmed from opposition to a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone, while the 2022 impasse resulted from disagreements over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine. According to the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Izumi Nakamitsu, there is a shared sense of crisis among states parties. The expiration of the New START treaty between the United States and Russia has left no bilateral arms control agreements between the two largest nuclear powers. Quantitative increases in nuclear capabilities are observed across all nuclear-armed states, reversing the post-Cold War disarmament trend. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported that the nine nuclear-armed states possessed 12,121 warheads as of January 2025, with the US and Russia holding nearly 90% of the global stockpile. Both countries have undertaken major modernization programs, and China has rapidly expanded its arsenal. France has announced an increase in its nuclear arsenal, and US President Donald Trump has indicated an intention to conduct new nuclear tests. A central point of contention is Iran's nuclear program. Iran, an NPT signatory, maintains that its activities are peaceful, but revelations in the early 2000s of undeclared nuclear work raised suspicions of weaponization. The US has demanded a 20-year moratorium on uranium enrichment and the export of Iran's stockpiles, a position that some argue contradicts the NPT's guarantee of the right to peaceful nuclear energy. One proposed pathway to resolution involves strengthening the NPT through universal, intrusive inspection regimes modeled on the Chemical Weapons Convention, applicable to all non-nuclear states. Such a framework would allow Iran to retain enrichment rights while accepting enhanced verification. Additionally, the US could signal renewed commitment to disarmament, a process that has seen an 80% reduction in arsenals since the Cold War, though currently reversed by modernization policies. The conference's consensus-based decision-making raises the likelihood of a third consecutive failure. Potential stumbling blocks include the war in Ukraine, Iran's nuclear program and the conflict there, North Korea's developing arsenal, and non-nuclear states' proliferation fears. The conference secretary-general, Christopher King, noted that while the treaty might not collapse immediately, it could unravel over time. Seth Sheldon of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) expressed doubt about a positive outcome, citing eroding trust both inside and outside the NPT. The role of artificial intelligence in nuclear command and control is also emerging as a topic, with some states calling for human control to be maintained.
Conclusion
The NPT review conference faces significant obstacles, with geopolitical rivalries and a lack of progress on disarmament undermining the treaty's foundational bargain. Without a consensus declaration, the long-term viability of the non-proliferation regime may be further eroded, though the treaty itself remains the central legal instrument for nuclear order.