"That [expiration of New START] could spill out into a new arms race between the two superpowers," Zlauvinen said.
According to him, a nuclear risk is a lot greater without communications between Russia and the United States.
"Even at the peak of the tensions in the Cold War, if you take the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was always a channel of communication between Moscow and Washington at the highest level, and the crisis was averted because of that communication. It seems to be that now there is no such communication," Zlauvinen said. "Without communications, then the risk is much higher."
Zlauvinen pointed out that, for example, with regard to the conflict in Ukraine, the communications at the highest level have been cut off between Washington, Moscow, or European capitals and Moscow.
President of the NPT conference believes that the United States and Russia have to be more responsible in pursuing discussions on nuclear arms control.
"They [United States and Russia] have to have more responsibility in pursuing discussions, conversations, arms controls, and reductions," Zlauvinen said.
Even during the Reagan-Gorbachev era, the United States and Russia managed to find a point in common to do some agreements to cap and reduce nuclear arsenals, he added.
"They [United States and Russia] have to have more responsibility in pursuing discussions, conversations, arms controls, and reductions," Zlauvinen said.
Even during the Reagan-Gorbachev era, the United States and Russia managed to find a point in common to do some agreements to cap and reduce nuclear arsenals, he added.
Negotiations between the United States and Russia on extending the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) should begin soon because there is nothing to replace it should the pact expire, Zlauvinen emphasized.
"I hope that they [United States and Russia] will start soon, but yes, if they don't, it will be too late and we may face a situation that the New START will end and we're not going to have any other instrument to replace it. I think that we will be in an extreme risk," Zlauvinen said.
The official also commented on reports that North Korea has been testing nuclear weapons.
"I think it (DPRK testing nuclear weapons) will have an effect on everything, ripple effect in the sense that the security in the region will be again compromised. You can probably expect some peoples in the region's calling for their own countries to get nuclear weapons…," Zlauvinen said.
On Possible Outcome of the NPT Conference
When asked about his assessment of the prospects of reaching a consensus during this conference and adopting a final document, President of the NPT Conference said that he remains optimistic about the matter.
"Under those circumstances, and because there are different opinions, It's going to be complex to get one single outcome document by consensus. But as a President, I'm very optimistic...Always I've been optimistic, and that's why I play tennis and I play poker. ... So I think that we can because, you know, all delegations, no one that I talked to want the system to fail. So, I think we have some slim chances, but still some chances that we can somehow maneuver through these different positions."
Zlauvinen pointed out that there was a growing majority of countries that were frustrated for the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament from the nuclear weapons states.
"The nuclear weapons states, they say that they are doing their best, but under the current circumstances it is difficult to move to nuclear disarmament," he said. "But also you have issues like Iran's nuclear program, in which the Americans and the Europeans they say that it could be potentially for production of nuclear weapons. Iran says ‘no,’ so the question how are we going to handle that. And then you have DPRK, North Korea, and obviously, you know, we have to reflect the situation in North Korea because it withdrew from the treaty, conducted nuclear explosions."
Asked what would be a successful outcome of the current conference, the official said that success looks different for everyone.
"For some people, it is to have one single outcome document by consensus where everything is included. Others would like to have political declarations about the importance of the Treaty and the relevance...Others would like to have separate documents on the Middle East, on DPRK. My view is that we shouldn't measure success of the review conference only if we produce one single document. I believe that the treaty doesn't call for a document to be adopted," he said.
Zlauvinen noted that in the past, for several review conferences, there was no agreement on any documents.
"I will say that I would like to get a meaningful outcome in the sense that delegations will leave New York with or without document, but with a clear sense of what they need to do better in the next five years till the next review conference, to better implement the treaty," he said. "Because at the end of the day, it's about obligations under the treaty, it is not about one piece of paper. You can get consensus on a piece of paper but if no one is going to fulfill it, what's the point."
"The nuclear weapons states, they say that they are doing their best, but under the current circumstances it is difficult to move to nuclear disarmament," he said. "But also you have issues like Iran's nuclear program, in which the Americans and the Europeans they say that it could be potentially for production of nuclear weapons. Iran says ‘no,’ so the question how are we going to handle that. And then you have DPRK, North Korea, and obviously, you know, we have to reflect the situation in North Korea because it withdrew from the treaty, conducted nuclear explosions."
Asked what would be a successful outcome of the current conference, the official said that success looks different for everyone.
"For some people, it is to have one single outcome document by consensus where everything is included. Others would like to have political declarations about the importance of the Treaty and the relevance...Others would like to have separate documents on the Middle East, on DPRK. My view is that we shouldn't measure success of the review conference only if we produce one single document. I believe that the treaty doesn't call for a document to be adopted," he said.
Zlauvinen noted that in the past, for several review conferences, there was no agreement on any documents.
"I will say that I would like to get a meaningful outcome in the sense that delegations will leave New York with or without document, but with a clear sense of what they need to do better in the next five years till the next review conference, to better implement the treaty," he said. "Because at the end of the day, it's about obligations under the treaty, it is not about one piece of paper. You can get consensus on a piece of paper but if no one is going to fulfill it, what's the point."
The United Nations sees the NPT as an essential pillar of international security, with its near universal membership and legally-binding obligations on disarmament and verifiable non-proliferation safeguards.
Under the NPT, the nuclear five — Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and China — agreed to never transfer nuclear weapons or share the technology with non-nuclear nations. Despite its historic significance as a cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime, the treaty has been criticized for failing to encourage nuclear-armed nations to give up their arsenals or to stop non-nuclear states from building an atomic bomb.
The treaty's third paragraph suggests a review to be held every five years. This year's conference is the 10th since regular reviews began in 1995. The event was initially scheduled for 2020, but it was delayed because of the pandemic.
The conference is supposed to adopt a final document, but there is no template for an outcome document. It is normally expected to consist of two parts — a review of past progress and an outlook for the future, better known as the 13 steps.
The results of past NPT review conferences have differed based on current political circumstances. In 2010, for example, delegations reached a consensus on the forward-looking part but not on the part reviewing the past. In 2015, the conference concluded without adopting an outcome document, and the reason was a lack of agreement regarding a Middle East Zone free of nuclear weapons.
The conference is supposed to adopt a final document, but there is no template for an outcome document. It is normally expected to consist of two parts — a review of past progress and an outlook for the future, better known as the 13 steps.
The results of past NPT review conferences have differed based on current political circumstances. In 2010, for example, delegations reached a consensus on the forward-looking part but not on the part reviewing the past. In 2015, the conference concluded without adopting an outcome document, and the reason was a lack of agreement regarding a Middle East Zone free of nuclear weapons.
On the Ukraine Conflict
Zlauvinen said the situation in Ukraine came up in all talks, and encouraged delegations to limit the conflict in the country to the matters directly concerning the NPT.
"It is the fact that the war in Ukraine is casting a shadow on all our conversations and there are many, I would say several delegations there bringing up the issue, you know, of the war in Ukraine," Zlauvinen said. "But just as President, I say that let's try to encapsulate the situation in Ukraine to those issues that have a direct linkage with the NPT. Those that are not linked, we shouldn't discuss."
Zlauvinen explained that, for example, the threat of nuclear use of nuclear weapons in one way or another should be discussed because it has a link with disarmament and negative security assurances.
"It is the fact that the war in Ukraine is casting a shadow on all our conversations and there are many, I would say several delegations there bringing up the issue, you know, of the war in Ukraine," Zlauvinen said. "But just as President, I say that let's try to encapsulate the situation in Ukraine to those issues that have a direct linkage with the NPT. Those that are not linked, we shouldn't discuss."
Zlauvinen explained that, for example, the threat of nuclear use of nuclear weapons in one way or another should be discussed because it has a link with disarmament and negative security assurances.
"Then, attacks on civilian nuclear facilities in Ukraine, also that goes against the principle of nuclear safety and security that protects people and environment and has a point of direct connection to the NPT," he said. "Then, we can talk about the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards inspectors that were not allowed to inspect one or two nuclear power plants in Ukraine because of the conflict."
Those issues should be discussed as actions that no one should ever do as they pose danger to the safety of everyone, the official said.
On Obstacles to Issuing of Visas to Russian Delegation
The Russian delegation receiving visas from the US for the Conference on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) made the conference start without issues, Zlauvinen said.
"So I wanted to prevent that. And I managed to do it. And that's why we started the conference without any problems from the procedures point of view," Zlauvinen said.
"So I wanted to prevent that. And I managed to do it. And that's why we started the conference without any problems from the procedures point of view," Zlauvinen said.
The NPT Review Conference, which takes place every five years, is being held in New York from August 1-26.
Some members of Russian, Iranian and Cuban delegations were not provided by US visas and complained, even blocking the consensus in the adoption of the rules of procedures for the meetings to start, he added.
Some members of Russian, Iranian and Cuban delegations were not provided by US visas and complained, even blocking the consensus in the adoption of the rules of procedures for the meetings to start, he added.
Russia has had a long-standing problem with diplomats not being able to obtain US visas in time to attend United Nations events.
On July 27, reports indicated that the United States did not issue visas to several Russian representatives intending to participate in the work of United Nations bodies.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier said a letter was sent to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urging him to ensure the United States fulfills its obligations as the host country of United Nations headquarters.
Lavrov said he was considering visiting the UN High Level Week in September but it was uncertain whether the United States would issue him the necessary visa to participate in the event.