THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR DIPLOMACY

Samodra Sriwidjaja
Former Ambassador Indonesia for Austria

ABSTRACT
THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR DIPLOMACY. In the midst of nuclear countries and
non-nuclear countries in the framework of non-proliferation and disarmament, Indonesia has
played an important role. Indonesia has been actively involved in each activity at the
international level to create a world free from nuclear weapons. This involvements needs to be
maintained and increased in the years to come. As a large country, Indonesia should play a key
role in the field of nuclear diplomacy. All of the efforts of nuclear diplomacy as mentioned
above had a clear objective to support Indonesia’s energy program, at the institution
framework as well as capacity building. Indonesia’s effort is also directed to attain
appropriated international public acceptance.
Keywords : Nuclear diplomacy, Non-Proliferation Treaty, CTBT, NPP

INTRODUCTION
Let me start by expressing my appreciation to the committee for giving
me an opportunity to speak before Women in Nuclear. It is indeed my first
experience during almost 40 years my carrier as Indonesian Diplomat to
attend The International Conference and the majority of the participants are
women. Not ordinary women but women in nuclear. I can’t imagine if the
women going to strike, certainly, there will be no more nuclear program.
Ladies and gentlemen why do we chose the role of Nuclear Diplomacy?
Before continuing this deliberation, permit me to know briefly the essence of
Diplomacy and Terminology surrounding it. Diplomacy is means to gain
national interest by peaceful means. Diplomat is the man who carrying out
diplomacy. Diploma is certificate for person who has already trained by
diplomatic skill and experience. Diplomatic is the end result of diplomacy.
Because atomic energy is beneficial for human being so the best approach in
gaining nuclear for peaceful and prosperity used is through diplomacy. As
you would be aware, that immediately after the tragic bombing in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, August 45, leaders and experts either in Europe or USA
realized the danger of Atomic Energy.
Soon after being inaugurated as the President of the United States of
America, Dwight D. Eisenhower realized that the rapid development of
nuclear weapons after World War II leads to the destruction of the world. In
efforts to persuade the American society (people) to accept measures to
control arms race, Eisenhower felt the need to elaborate on the implausible
force of nuclear weapons. In his speech entitled „Atom for Peace“ in front of
the General Assembly of the United Nations on 8 December 1945, apart from
forewarning on the dangers of nuclear, Eisenhower also presented his

23
thoughts on transforming atomic energy for the benefit of the welfare of the
human race.
Today, 62 years after Eisenhower’s historical speech. However, the
international effort to disarm nuclear weapons, as well as non-proliferation, is
still pursued intensively without certainty to a successful comprehensive
conclusion and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. In this regard, the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a treaty that is internationally recognized as
a binding agreement on weapons control adhered to by almost every country
in the world, is still being reviewed periodically on its effectiveness.

NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons)

The Treaty was opened for signature on 1 July 1968, and was signed by
the United States, United Kingdom, and former Soviet Union and 59 other
countries. The treaty entered into force with the deposition of the instrument
of ratification of the United States on 5 March 1970. Today, after 37 years
the NPT entered into force, excluding India and Pakistan, as well as North
Korea who withdrew in early 2003, 190 countries have become parties to
the Treaty[1].
In general, it is worth mentioning that the NPT is relatively a short
Treaty with only 11 articles. From these 11 articles, there 3 main articles that
have been debated on its implementation, which article I related to
disarmament, article II on non-proliferation, and article IV on the inalienable
right of State Parties to develop its nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination.
In line with article X of the NPT, 25 year later after its entry into force,
there is a need to hold a Conference to decide whether the Treaty should
continue without any time limits, or extended for a certain period. For that
very reason, on 11 May 1995 a NPT Review Conference was held in New
York. At this review 3 decisions and a resolution were adopted. The first
decision was to extend the NPT without any time limit and without any
preconditions. The second decision was that the principle and objectives of
non-proliferation and disarmament was formulated to assist State Parties in
implementing the next phase. The third decision was the enhancement of the
process of review for the preparation of review conference in the future. The
resolution that was adopted was the establishment of a nuclear weapons free
zone in the Middle East.
At the Review Conference in 2000, a phenomenal decision was taken
which agreed on 13 practical steps as a systematic and progressive effort to
attain total disarmament. The 13 practical steps are as follows [2] :
1. The signing of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT):
The importance of all States in the world to sign and ratify the CTBT as

24
 soon as possible, without any condition in line with its the constitutional
process, with the purpose of expediting entry into force.
2. Test Ban: The moratorium of nuclear test and detonation albeit the CTBT
has not entered into force.
3. Negotiation: The need to negotiate at the Conference on Disarmament for
the prohibition to produce nuclear fissile materials for nuclear weapons
and for its other nuclear detonating equipments.
4. Negotiation: The need to establish a subsidiary body at the Conference
on Disarmament with the mandate to handle disarmament.
5. Irreversibility: The irreversibility principle applies for the nuclear
disarmament.
6. Elimination of Nuclear Weapons: The commitment of nuclear States for
the total elimination of its nuclear weapons in respect of disarmament in
accordance with article VI of the NPT.
7. Enforcement of existing treaties: The full implementation of START II
and the conclusion of START III in order to strengthen the ABM Treaty
as the first stepping stone for a strategic stabilizer and as the basis for
further reduction of the strategic offensive weapons.
8. Implementation of existing treaties: The conclusion and implementation
of the three party initiatives of the US, Russian Federation, and IAEA,
which contains verification of fissile materials from weapons and other
materials which has been eliminated from their defense programs.
9. Step by step: The gradual implementation of all nuclear weapon states to
eliminate their nuclear weapons to promote international stability.
10. Fissile material under IAEA’s surveillance: The agreement from nuclear
weapon countries to place disposed fissile materials for military purpose
under IAEA’s surveillance.
11. Disarmament in general and in full: The reaffirmation to the ultimate aim
for the general and in full disarmament under the effective international
control.
12. Reporting: Periodical report of all State Parties on the implementation of
article VI of the NPT.
13. Verification: Verification capacity needed to guarantee compliance to the
disarmament agreement to achieve and maintain a world free from
nuclear weapons.

The previous Review Conference was held from 2 – 27 May 2005. 150
State Parties, 13 regional/international organizations, and 119 research
institutions and non-governmental organization in the field of non-
proliferation and disarmament attended the Conference. However many
observed that this was the worst conference ever which resulted in many
procedural reports, and substantive recommendation did not achieve an
agreement. From the three main committees that were given the mandate to
conduct substantive discussion, only the First Committee on Non-

25
Proliferation and Disarmament succeeded in submitting their report attached
with the working paper to the Conference, however the text of the working
paper did not achieve consensus. The Second Committee on Nuclear
Weapons Free Zone, Safeguard and Regional Issues and the Third Committee
on the Use of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes, Universality and
Withdrawal did not succeed to attach their substantive document in
their reports[3].

NPT AND IAEA

Though not a Party to the NPT, the International Atomic Energy
Agency, is entrusted and plays a key role, as well as is responsible in
implementing the NPT. Based on article III of the NPT the IAEA implements
international safeguards to verify non-nuclear countries that are State Parties
to the NPT fulfill their non-proliferation commitments with the objective of
preventing diversion of nuclear energy for peaceful purpose into nuclear
weapons or other detonating equipments. Meanwhile article IV of the NPT
stipulates that IAEA facilitates and provide opportunities to further develop
the application of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in particular to
non-nuclear State Parties with utmost consideration of the needs of
developing countries.
In order to implement article III of the NPT, the IAEA enters into
agreement on the comprehensive safeguards agreement with non-nuclear
State Parties of the NPT. Till the mid of 2005 140 countries have placed their
materials and nuclear activities under the safeguards agreement with the
IAEA. However, there are still 36 State Parties which have not concluded
their comprehensive safeguards agreement, with 13 countries which have
signed the agreement but have not ratified it, 3 have been agreed by the
Board of Governors of the IAEA but have not signed it, and 20 countries
have not submitted their comprehensive safeguards agreed to the Board of
Governors of the IAEA for its consideration.
In order to strengthen the comprehensive safeguards agreement, the
IAEA further devised an additional protocol, which would allow IAEA to
inspect locations or other installations, apart from nuclear facilities to verify
non-proliferation commitments. Till now, 113 countries have been agreed by
the Board of Governors to implement the additional protocol, 104 countries
have signed it and 69 countries have concluded in full.
As a country with a strong commitment in non-proliferation and
disarmament, Indonesia has concluded the comprehensive safeguards
agreement and the additional protocol since 1999. Furthermore, Indonesia is
one of the three countries (the other two countries are Australia and Norway)
which has concluded the integrated safeguards, a more flexible approach in
implementing safeguards in focusing verification with limited resources,

26
including areas in which the inspectors needs to concentrate on, locations that
they should observe and tools that are needed to verify.
Prior to the 50th Anniversary of the IAEA, which will be held in July
2007, the IAEA Secretariat proposed main activities as follows:
• Special Scientific Forum at the 50th General Conference on the new
framework for nuclear fuel cycle.
• A series of holding special forums all year long in various regions on
nuclear application and technical cooperation, nuclear energy, nuclear
security and safety, and safeguards.
• Adoption of a commemorative declaration of all member countries of the
IAEA at the 50th General Conference, record of IAEA’s achievements in
the past and designing the targets for the future.

The Secretariat requested Member Countries to support IAEA’s

activities for the anniversary, including sending high-level dignitaries to the
50th General Conference, and submit memorabilia for the exhibition.
The following activities needs to brought to the attention of the
Indonesian Government to utilize the momentum of the 50th Anniversary of
IAEA, as follows:
a. Cooperate with the IAEA to conduct activities to increase people’s
awareness on the benefits of nuclear energy, including holding a seminar
or a workshop in Jakarta. These activities can also be utilized to prepare
and socialize the plan to develop and operate a nuclear power plant
by 2017.
b. In regards to the exhibition, Indonesia can contribute artifacts or arts,
such as statues or paintings as a commemorating the Anniversary.
c. Sending the highest level of dignitaries to the 50th General Conference of
the IAEA in September 2007.
d. Signing or ratifying international instruments related to nuclear, in
particular the Joint Convention on the safety of Spent Fuel Management
and an the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.
e. Publish at the national level and/or the United Nations on the success
story of Indonesia’s cooperation with IAEA and future challenges.

CTBT
One of the international instruments in monitoring nuclear test and
detonation is the CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty). This is
one of the complex treaties ever formulated and took many years, since its
first proposed in 1950 until its adoption in 1996.
However, until now the CTBT has not entered into force. Albeit almost
all countries of the world recognize the noble objectives of the treaty, in

27
reality international power plays an important role in which many country
awaits the response from the Unites States. President Bill Clinton was the
first world leader who signed the treaty, and had reminded the Congress that
if the US failed to ratify the CTBT, this would bring a signal to the world that
the US is against non-proliferation. However Congress opposed to ratify in
October 1999 after the Republicans stated that the CTBT would fail to
monitor States.
In general, the treaty consisted of a preamble, 17 articles, 2 annexes
and one protocol with 2 annexes. Annex 1 provides a list of countries based
on geographical regional representation for the election of the Executive
Board, and annex 2 provides the list of 44 states that needs to ratify the
convention in order to enter into force. The protocol consisted of 3 parts, the
first part elaborated the functions of International Monitoring System (IMS)
and the International Data Centre (IDC), part two established the procedure
for on-site inspections, and part three is related to confidence building
measures. Annex 1 of the protocol provides a list of facilities that are a part
of the IMS network, and annex 2 provides a list of characteristic parameters
to verify the standard of events of data being processed through the IDC.
Based on article XIV, the treaty will enter into force after 180 days,
after 44 states listed in annex 2 have ratified. The 44 countries are states that
have a nuclear power plant or a nuclear research reactor, which in theory has
the capacity to produce materials for a nuclear bomb. From the 44 countries,
41 countries have signed, and 22 countries have ratified. However North
Korea, India and Pakistan included in the list have not signed the treaty.
Indonesia is among the 44 countries listed in annex 2, has signed the treaty in
1996, however due to eventful domestic works to complete its reformation
and democratization process, the ratification of the CTBT is not of priority.
As known, that in July 2002, President Megawati Soekarnotputri had iterated
the Governments position that nuclear technology will be used for peaceful
purposes and instructed the Minister for Foreign Affairs to arrange the
ratification of the CTBT.
Though the treaty has not entered into force, in the framework of the
UN the Provisional Technical Secretariat of the Preparatory Commission of
the CTBT Organization (CTBTO) had been established. Till now, CTBTO is
still preparing and strengthening its technical capacities in detecting
explosion from nuclear tests. In the framework of IMS and IDC, CTBTO has
321 monitoring stations and 16 laboratories. CTBTO’s technical capacities
can be benefited for science and civil use apart from its main task.

CHALLENGES FACED BY THE WORLD TODAY

Albeit all that, international instruments in efforts for non-proliferation
and disarmament is readily available, however in reality the hope for a world
without nuclear weapons is still a dream. As portrayed in the holding of the

28
Review Conference of the NPT in May 2005 in New York, all countries
agreed that non-proliferation and disarmament is faced with a complicated
challenge in its integrity and effectiveness. However, they differ from
characterizing the main threat and the needs to respond to the challenge.
The challenges that the world is facing in regards to non-proliferation
and disarmament among others are as follows:
1. The withdrawal of North Korea from the NPT. To many of the Western
countries the withdrawal is considered as the efforts of the North Koreans
in developing its nuclear weapons. However, North Korea firmly stated
that they have withdrew from the NPT because of their distrust towards
the US that the US is taking advantage of the IAEA to spy on their
domestic problems and curb the socialist system in North Korea. In this
regard we have to observe the latest development concerning the
progress of the countries in facilitating the negotiation with North Korea.
2. Efforts of countries in implementing nuclear fuel cycle, which
theoretically can be utilized to develop nuclear weapons. Some countries
are of the view the ability for nuclear fuel cycle should be limited to each
country, and some countries are of the view that the limitation is
applicable to certain suspected countries only.
3. The findings of nuclear programmes that have not been reported to the
IAEA in the framework of the safeguards agreement, such as in Libya,
South Korea, Egypt and Iran. The black market that was established by
Dr. A.Q. also indicated the weakness in the safeguards system of
the IAEA.
4. There are some reservations of certain countries to implement their
commitments of agreed upon at the Review Conference of the NPT in
2000. This is the reason for Egypt’s refusal of the provisional agenda of
the Conference, which have been formulated by the President of the
Conference that did not reflect the commitment in 2000.
5. A fact that Israel refuses to join the NPT. In a broader context, this
country is a part of the “three country problem” together with India and
Pakistan, who also refuses to join the NPT. However, the latest
development is the agreement on nuclear cooperation between the US
and India, in which the later is seriously considering joining the NPT.
6. Finally, the escalating threat of terrorism has raised awareness on the
safety and security of nuclear weapons, fissile materials, technology, and
nuclear facilities. Bearing these facts in mind, there is a need to increase
measures to reduce and eradicate terrorist threat.

THE ROLE OF INDONESIA’S DIPLOMACY

In a world of uncertainty on matters related to non-proliferation and
disarmament, Indonesia plays a significant role in efforts to curb those

29
uncertainties. In the framework of the Non-Aligned Movement, the
Indonesian Permanent Mission in New York has been coordinator for
disarmament in past years. In the history of Indonesia’s diplomacy it is noted
that President Soekarno at 15th General Assembly on 30 September 1960
submitted a draft resolution on disarmament.
Furthermore, the Indonesian Permanent Mission in Vienna, in which
the Secretariat of IAEA is located, have been involved actively in various
meetings of the Board of Governors of IAEA that discusses issues on
safeguards and verification. After 40 years without having taken an important
seat, on September 2002, Indonesia succeeded in becoming the President of
the General Conference of the IAEA at its 46th session. The Permanent
Representative of the Republic of Indonesia during January to June 2005 had
also taken the Chairmanship of the G-77 and China, which is tasked to
prepare group statements on matters relating to the meetings of the Board of
Governors of the IAEA relating to the groups position on matters relating
with safeguards and verification. Apart from being the Vice Chair of the
CTBT, Indonesia’s role in the Board of Governor of the IAEA will become
more important in 2005-2007 [4-7].
In this regard, during the NPT Review Conference, Ambassador
Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs had the opportunity to Chair the First Committee as have been
elaborated above. This Committee was the only committee that succeeded in
submitting the substantive working paper, although it was not adopted
by consensus.
The above accomplishment was supported by nuclear and non-nuclear
countries to the Chair of the First Committee in bridging principle differences
between State Parties to formulate a balanced, comprehensive and impartial
working paper. The success of this effort was not only the appreciation of the
international community towards Indonesia’s leadership in multilateral
diplomacy, particularly in the field of non-proliferation and disarmament, but
also as a proof of international recognition towards Indonesia’s role in efforts
to secure and maintain international peace and security as mandated in the
1945 Constitution and the Charter of the United Nations.
Recent events, such as Indonesia non-permanent membership in the
Security Council is reflection of Indonesia’s role in maintaining peace and
international security. One of the roles is the effort of Indonesia to advocate
the peaceful use of nuclear and the inalienable right of States to attain nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes. The Security Council’s resolution 1747 –
is a test case for Indonesia’s role in the Security Council. Indonesia had voted
for the resolution, albeit strong resentments back home. However, the
decision to vote for should not be taken as “face-value” – the process of
negotiating the draft resolution should be highlighted, as all diplomacy runs
in parallel to negotiations and compromising. Three proposals for
amendments to the resolution should be borne in mind. First the proposal to

30
reaffirm the inalienable rights of countries to attain nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes, secondly the need for free nuclear weapons free zone in
the middle, and thirdly the need to further negotiations and diplomacy in
pursuing a common resolve on the Iranian nuclear issues. This showcases
Indonesia’s main principles of foreign policy towards non-proliferation and
disarmament. This three proposals that was adopted, portrays Indonesia to be
balanced and impartial in observing the issue related with Iran’s nuclear
programme. It also does not undermine, that in many aspect Indonesia is
supporting Iran.

CONCLUSION
Non-proliferation and disarmament cannot be denied that it is the
biggest challenge of the world to create a safe and peaceful world free from
nuclear weapons. Enhanced efforts of countries needs to be furthered to attain
those noble goals. A variety of international instruments in a form of treaties,
conventions and agreements have been successfully formulated and entered
into force and binding to State Parties. However it is not enough. Trust,
honesty and sincerity of all parties are still uncommon in the activities
of multilateral diplomacy in the field of non-proliferation and
nuclear disarmament.
In the midst of nuclear countries and non-nuclear countries in the
framework of non-proliferation and disarmament, Indonesia has played an
important role. Indonesia has been actively involved in each activity at the
international level to create a world free from nuclear weapons. This
involvements needs to be maintained and increased in the years to come.
As a large country, Indonesia should play a key role in the field of
nuclear diplomacy.
All of the efforts of nuclear diplomacy as mentioned above had a clear
objective to support Indonesia’s energy programme, at the institution
framework as well as capacity building. Indonesia’s effort is also directed to
attain appropriated international public acceptance.

REFERENCES
1. IAEA, Resolutions and Other Decisions of The General Conference
(2001-2005).
2. IAEA, Meetings of the Board of Governors (2002-2005).
3. NPT Review Conference, New York (2005).
4. Status of the Preparation of the Development of Nuclear Power Plants in
Indonesia, Work Meeting of BATAN (April 2006).

31
5. BATAN, Nuclear Energy as a Part of the National Energy System Long-
Term Period, Executive Summary (2005).
6. Formulations and Recommendations from the Result of KATN
(November 2006).
7. The Role of Nuclear Electric Power Plant and Public Acceptance
(February 22, 2007).

32