Artikler - NPT
Tim Wrights referat fra NPT Review Conference
Tim Wright er NWC (Nuclear Weapons Convention) Prosjekt koordinator og kommer med oppsummeringer fra FN's tilsynskonferanse i New York mellom 3.5 til 28.5.
Disse referatene vil oppdateres fortløpende
Rapport fra tilsynskonferansen kan lastes ned her
30.05 - Aspiring to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
On Friday, the 189 parties to the NPT adopted by consensus a final document, which includes an action plan on nuclear disarmament. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) welcomed the re-affirmation by the nuclear-weapon states of their “unequivocal undertaking” to disarm, but expressed disappointment that many of the disarmament “actions” are phrased more as aspirational goals than firm time-bound commitments.
In the second half of the conference, the Non-Aligned Movement had proposed more than 200 amendments to the original draft document, mostly aimed at attaching timelines to disarmament undertakings. However, they were largely unsuccessful in doing so. A number of them stated their regret on Friday that it had not been possible to broker a stronger agreement. It appears that the nuclear-weapon states still consider nuclear abolition to be a far-off vision, not a near-term objective.
Many countries have vowed to keep up the pressure on the nuclear-weapon states to make meaningful progress in eliminating their nuclear arsenals over the next few years. The Non-Aligned Movement, for example, said after the final document was adopted that it would “vigorously pursue” as one of its key priorities the prompt commencement of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention “as the route to realizing a world free from nuclear weapons by the year 2025”.
Historical first
The final document is the first to refer to a Nuclear Weapons Convention — not once, but twice — but it falls well short of calling for negotiations to begin now on such a treaty, as is supported by a majority of governments each year in the UN General Assembly. Nevertheless, the inclusion of references to a convention in the text — for which many governments fought very hard — provides civil society with a useful foundation for continuing to build the pressure to begin negotiations.
Dr. Rebecca Johnson, vice-chair of ICAN, told media: “The action plan on nuclear disarmament as well as the inability of the NPT machinery to deal with non-compliance and to strengthen its own safeguards agreements, as illustrated in what was left out of the final document, make it now clear to everyone the need to initiate a process leading to negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention that will do away with the NPT distinction between nuclear haves and have-nots and comprehensively ban nuclear weapons for all.”
A new approach
We are pleased that the need for a comprehensive nuclear abolition treaty was a central element of the debate at this Review Conference, with a large majority of governments prepared to put their weight behind the idea. Forty years after the entry into force of the NPT, there is a high degree of dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world. Non-nuclear-weapon states are looking for a new approach.
A Nuclear Weapons Convention, rather than “derailing” the disarmament process (as some have claimed), will put us on track — for the first time — to nuclear abolition. The next few years will be crucial in building momentum towards that goal. We must not let down our guard, and hope that all will be well, simply because governments were able to agree on an outcome document at this Review Conference. It should provide the impetus for real action, not an excuse for inaction.
ICAN will circulate a full report from the Review Conference shortly.
28.05 - Disarmament “Inaction” Plan?
This evening a revised version of the draft final document for the NPT Review Conference was released, with governments expected to vote on it tomorrow morning. The afternoon session is reserved for platitudes. The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and France have been largely successful in removing from the document anything requiring them to take meaningful short-term steps to advance disarmament. Many of the disarmament “actions” are now phrased as vague aspirations.
Report on Article VI
Under the draft document, the Review Conference “notes with concern that the total estimated number of nuclear weapons deployed and stockpiled still amounts to several thousands”, and “expresses its deep concern at the continued risk for humanity represented by the possibility that these weapons could be used and the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear weapons”.
If adopted, it would be the first time for a review conference to affirm “that the final phase of the nuclear disarmament process and other related measures should be pursued within an agreed legal framework, which a majority of States parties believe should include specified timelines”. This is a welcome inclusion, although there is no reason why the development of such a framework — in the form of a convention — should not begin now. It is disappointing that the P5 were unable to accept the need for timelines.
Disarmament plan
* Unequivocal undertaking: Under the “action-focused” section of the draft document, the conference resolves “to seek a safer world for all and to achieve the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”, and reaffirms “the unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament”. Such an undertaking was made in 2000 — but it turned out to be quite equivocal.
* Undiminished security: The document states that “significant steps” leading to nuclear disarmament should promote international stability and be “based on the principle of increased and undiminished security for all”. This in effect places conditions on nuclear disarmament — for example, reductions in conventional forces by certain states and the resolution of regional conflicts.
* Humanitarian law: One of the more positive aspects of the document — but not an “action” as such — is the affirmation by all states of the need to comply with “applicable international law, including international humanitarian law”, at all times. This is a slight rewording of the original draft text, which now seems to leave open the possibility that international humanitarian law may not, in all circumstances, apply to the use of nuclear weapons.
* Framework for abolition: The conference encourages in particular those states with the largest nuclear arsenals — the United States and Russia — to lead efforts to reduce and eliminate all types of nuclear weapons. It calls on all nuclear-weapon states to “undertake concrete disarmament efforts” and affirms that all states need to “make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons”.
* Five-point plan: In this context, the conference “notes” the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan on nuclear disarmament, which proposes consideration of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. However, unlike previous drafts, the latest version of the final document does not state that the Secretary-General’s proposal contributes to the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world. It falls short of endorsing the plan.
* Modernization: The “refurbishment” of nuclear forces has been a heated element of the debate at the conference. The final text refers to this, but not in any actionable way. The conference, rather than requiring the nuclear-weapon states to cease modernization, merely “recognizes the legitimate interests of non-nuclear-weapon states in the constraining by the nuclear-weapon states of the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and ending the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons”.
* Arsenal reductions: The nuclear-weapon states commit to undertake further efforts to reduce and “ultimately” eliminate all types of nuclear weapons, deployed and non-deployed, including through unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral measures. The nuclear-weapon states have argued that they are already engaged in such efforts.
* Bilateral negotiations: Russia and the United States are “encouraged to continue discussions” on follow-on measures in order to achieve deeper reductions in their nuclear arsenals. During the conference, a number of states expressed dissatisfaction at the modest reductions in the New START agreement that was concluded last month.
* Engaging in discussions: Earlier drafts of the action plan included “consultations” among the nuclear-weapon states on various issues aimed at paving the way towards negotiations on elimination. However, now they are simply called upon to “promptly engage” with a view to “rapidly moving towards an overall reduction in the global stockpile of all types of nuclear weapons”. This action still includes a reference to nuclear-sharing, but it is very vague: the nuclear-weapon states are called on to “address the question of all nuclear weapons regardless of their type or their location”.
* No-first-use: China’s proposal for dialogue leading to a no-first-use declaration by all of the nuclear-weapon states did not find its way into the final draft. China is the only one of the P5 to have adopted such a policy. The nuclear-weapon states are also called upon to “consider the legitimate interest of non-nuclear-weapon states in further reducing the operational status of nuclear weapons systems”. This is more or less a non-action.
* Secretary-General’s conference: The greatest disappointment of the final draft is the deletion of the paragraph concerning a conference to be convened by the UN Secretary-General to consider the need for a universal legal instrument — that is, a Nuclear Weapons Convention — in advancing the goal of elimination. This aspect of the earlier draft had been welcomed by many non-government organizations.
Just more inaction?
This draft final declaration shows that there is still a sizeable gap between the rhetoric of P5 leaders and what they are actually prepared to do, in concrete terms, to make their “vision” of a nuclear-weapon-free world a reality. Their collective refusal to achieve disarmament threatens the nuclear non-proliferation regime, international law in general, and indeed the very future of humanity. When so much is at stake, we need to be demanding much more than this vague plan for “action”.
27.05 - Pursuing a Convention Now
Negotiations on the final outcome document for the NPT Review Conference continued late into the night on Wednesday. Although we have been unable to observe the discussions — a note on the conference room door reads, in pink highlighter, “No NGOs, No Press” — many diplomats have informed us of what is being said on the inside. It has been largely negative. The chance that the conference will adopt a progressive, forward-looking disarmament action plan is becoming slimmer by the day.
Does this mean that there is no hope for real progress in achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world anytime soon? No. What it does tell us, however, is that we need to devise a new strategy for advancing abolition, because the current step-by-step incremental approach is not yielding any results. The nuclear-weapon states remain unashamedly uncommitted to nuclear disarmament, and too few of the non-nuclear-weapon states have any real plan to lift us out of the quagmire.
It is time for fresh thinking on disarmament — or, as a group of American youth have said, it is time to “think outside the bomb”. Regardless of the outcome of this Review Conference, we call on all governments to actively pursue a Nuclear Weapons Convention, which would establish the legal and institutional framework needed to achieve a world free of the nuclear menace. The NPT, with all of its flaws, will not bring us to zero.
At this conference, we have seen more governments accept the need for a comprehensive convention, but it is still largely regarded as part of a long-term plan, rather than a near-term goal. Commencing negotiations now would stimulate progress on nuclear disarmament. We must not wait for the nuclear-weapon states to take the lead. They will naturally be followers in this process — dragged into it because the international pressure to join will be so great that they cannot resist.
Today, such pressure is minimal, but there are signs that it may be building. Why should we be content living in a world with 23,000 nuclear weapons? Why should governments not be expressing constant outrage at this insane situation? Whose lives will be sacrificed before we finally wake up and realize that abolition is not an option but an urgent necessity? Diplomats at the Review Conference must seriously ask themselves whether their country is doing enough to advance the goal of elimination, and what role they, as individuals, can play in changing the course.
Britain’s nuclear arsenal
Yesterday the new British foreign secretary, William Hague, disclosed for the first time the size of the United Kingdom’s nuclear arsenal. It was intended to be a positive contribution to the debate. But it is hard not to be disappointed, given that the arsenal consists of 225 nuclear warheads — 65 more than disarmament advocates had thought to be the case. We would have preferred him to announce that the new government won’t renew the nation’s fleet of ageing nuclear-armed Trident submarines.
Nuclear Abolition Day
Regardless of the outcome of the Review Conference, civil society will continue to strengthen its push for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The idea is now starting to catch on, with a large majority of countries voicing their support for a convention at this conference. On June 5, across the world, we will hold rallies, marches, festivals, forums and vigils in support of such a treaty. Actions have been registered in dozens of countries.
Let there be no mistake: we are not about to give up. Failure at this conference will only make us more determined to succeed.
25.05 - Final Declaration: Which Is Which?
Last night, when the clock struck midnight, the president's draft of the final declaration for the NPT Review Conference was released to delegations. It is more or less a compilation of the reports from the three main committees and three subsidiary bodies, with the addition of a preamble. Governments will have an opportunity to comment on the draft declaration later today. The president hopes that they will adopt the final text on Friday morning. NGOs have prepared a revision of the document's preamble, which I have pasted below along with the real version. Try to guess which is which.
* View the entire draft declaration here
25.05 - The P5 vs. The World
Yesterday the nuclear-weapon states publicly opposed almost every element of the draft disarmament action plan that has any chance of actually advancing nuclear abolition. They made it perfectly clear that they are not at all serious about realizing their stated “vision” of a nuclear-weapon-free world. Despite a change in P5 rhetoric from previous NPT review conferences, there is almost no change in their actual positions. They remain intent on preserving the status quo.
Until yesterday, the United Kingdom had not played a prominent role in the negotiations because of the recent change of government. However, it now appears that their diplomats have received instructions from London, and these instructions — as ICAN vice-chair Dr. Rebecca Johnson put it on her blog — “are to get rid of anything resembling focused, comprehensive, practical or progressive action towards building a world free of nuclear weapons”.
France called for the reference to the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan on disarmament, which includes the consideration of a Nuclear Weapons Convention as a way of fulfilling Article VI of the NPT, to be moved from the forward-looking action plan to the review section of the outcome document. This suggests that, in France’s view, the Secretary-General’s plan is a spent initiative that should not have any relevance to future discussions.
Defending disarmament
A number of Non-Aligned Movement nations, as well as the New Agenda Coalition, voiced strong opposition to the P5’s concerted push to destroy the draft disarmament action plan — which, at the end of last week, appeared to have broad support. Many of the non-nuclear-weapon states have been willing to compromise on various aspects of the draft, but the nuclear-weapon states have so far been unwilling to do the same in return.
Algeria — not about to give in to the demands of the P5 — argued for a further reference to a Nuclear Weapons Convention to be inserted into the document. It suggested that the Conference reaffirm that “the strict observance of all the provisions of the NPT remains central to achieving the shared objectives of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, including through the negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, …”
As ICAN supporter Desmond Tutu wrote in The Guardian at the weekend, “Nuclear disarmament is not an option for governments to take up or ignore. It is a moral duty owed by them to their own citizens, and to humanity as a whole.” We must not allow the nuclear-weapon states to continue obstructing progress. The entire world has a legitimate interest in realizing the NPT’s promise of nuclear disarmament. Unless the P5 accept a concrete disarmament action plan, this conference is bound to fail.
24.05 - Toss Them into the Dustbin of History
On Saturday, Desmond Tutu — a patron of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons — wrote an opinion article for Britain’s Guardian newspaper in which he called on delegates at the NPT Review Conference to shift the focus from the failed policy of nuclear arms control to nuclear abolition. “Just as we have outlawed other categories of particularly inhuman and indiscriminate weapons … we must now turn our attention to outlawing the most iniquitous weapons of all,” he wrote.
He criticized the lack of progress made by the nuclear-weapon states towards the goal of complete nuclear disarmament, noting that none of them appears to be preparing for a future without these terrifying devices. “Forty years after the NPT entered into force, we should seriously question whether we are on track to abolition.” He called on all nations to “radically alter our trajectory now”, and warned that we “must not await another Hiroshima or Nagasaki before finally mustering the political will to banish these weapons from global arsenals”.
According to Tutu, the most obvious and realistic path to a nuclear-weapon-free world is for nations to negotiate a legally binding ban, which would include a timeline for elimination and establish an institutional framework to ensure compliance. “Governments should agree at this NPT Review Conference to toss their nuclear arms into the dustbin of history, along with those other monstrous evils of our time — slavery and apartheid,” he wrote.
* Read the full article by Desmond Tutu.
Educating for abolition
Last Friday ICAN was honoured to co-host an event on disarmament education with six hibakusha — victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — who, since the Review Conference began, have been visiting schools in New York with our partner organization Hibakusha Stories. In their testimonies, they emphasized the importance of bringing the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war into the discussion about nuclear disarmament at the UN.
ICAN is dedicated to educating students and the wider public about the gravity of the nuclear problem with the aim of empowering them to promote a nuclear-weapon-free world. More than 40 governments expressed their support for disarmament education at this Review Conference. We encourage all of them, and others, to get behind our efforts. Public education will be vital to the success of the campaign for nuclear abolition.
* View our education resource, Learn Peace.
20.05 - Considering Disarming, Maybe
The second draft of the 26-point action plan on nuclear disarmament was released yesterday. It’s now a 24-point plan, and many of the elements applauded by civil society groups this week have either been removed or significantly watered down. The weaker the draft becomes, the clearer it is that we cannot afford to rely on the NPT review process to provide the impetus for the urgent action needed to make abolition a reality.
In mockery of the revised draft, Ray Acheson from Reaching Critical Will wrote this morning in News In Review — the daily NGO newsletter for the Review Conference — that the NPT states parties have only been able to agree on “potential approaches toward building consensus for looking at a framework for consideration of preparatory measures that could change the conditions for progress toward a step-by-step approach for considering nuclear disarmament”.
Postponing disarmament
The original draft required the nuclear-weapon States to hold consultations in 2011 aimed at accelerating progress on various issues related to disarmament — from ending the illegal practice of nuclear-sharing in Europe to taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert — but now such consultations need only be convened in a “timely” manner. Ultimately, it will be up to the nuclear-weapon States to define “timely”.
Under the revised draft, the UN Secretary-General will still be invited to convene a conference for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including by means of a universal legal instrument, but there is no longer a set date for doing so (originally, it was to be held in 2014). Like most other commitments in the draft, there is nothing to prevent states from postponing it indefinitely. The text implies that it may not even happen before 2015.
This is not good enough
In general, the revised draft lacks any sense of urgency. We have called for concrete steps with specified dates, but all that the parties have so far managed to agree on are vague commitments to “consider” ways to move things forward. Clearly, despite all the rhetoric about a nuclear-weapon-free world, there is a lack of genuine political will from all five nuclear-weapon States — and many NATO members, among others — to set us on the track to nuclear abolition.
The revised draft includes a new “action” for a subsidiary body to be set up in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva to “exchange views and information” on steps towards reducing arsenals and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons. Trying to hold such discussions in the CD — a body unable to produce anything in more than a decade and a half — will all but guarantee the further stagnation of the disarmament process.
What should we tell the 20 million people who signed petitions calling on their leaders to agree at this Review Conference to begin work now on a Nuclear Weapons Convention? Or to the hundreds of hibakusha who travelled to New York to make their desperate plea for no more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis? Or to the many thousands of people around the world who have suffered from the effects of nuclear testing and uranium mining?
Must we inform them that the best their governments could come up with at the Review Conference, 40 years after the NPT entered into force, were a few vague promises to “consider” among themselves possible options for one day, perhaps not any time soon, moving disarmament forward, but only a little?
19.05 - No Shelter Under This Umbrella
This morning’s debate on nuclear disarmament at the NPT Review Conference focused largely on the issue of a time-bound framework for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Non-Aligned Movement and New Agenda Coalition expressed strong support for retaining this reference in the chair’s draft report for Main Committee I, while three of the nuclear-weapon States — France, Russia and the United States — rejected the notion of imposing a timeframe on the implementation of their Article VI obligation to disarm.
Brazil expressed its deep regret that the last decade was a lost decade in terms of nuclear disarmament. It said: “Among the aims of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the one that has not been achieved at all is the Article VI obligation.” South Africa stressed the importance of providing certainty at this Review Conference to the non-nuclear-weapon States in order to avoid desperation and frustration: “When we come back for the next Review Conference, we want more members, not fewer members.”
Abolition Statement
This morning the Abolition NGO Caucus for the Review Conference, which meets daily, released its response to the 26-point draft action plan on disarmament from Subsidiary Body I. Its statement welcomed the emphasis in the plan on the need to achieve the complete elimination of nuclear weapons as a matter of urgency and within a specified timeframe, and noted that the draft action plan “sets out a concrete and detailed programme for advancing a nuclear-weapon-free world”.
According to the Caucus, the plan “reflects a compromise between the overwhelming calls from civil society, together with a majority of countries, for the immediate commencement of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention and the positions of some States not yet ready to begin such negotiations”. However, it offered a number of positive suggestions for improving the chair’s draft. The statement concluded: “Forty years after the entry into force of the Treaty, it is vital that parties adopt an outcome document that puts us clearly on track to nuclear abolition.”
Nuclear Umbrella
One issue that has not been discussed nearly enough at this Review Conference is the effect that “extended nuclear deterrence” has on preventing meaningful progress towards nuclear disarmament. It is no coincidence that many of the governments that are opposed to beginning negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention rely on the so-called “protection” of the US nuclear umbrella for their national security. These countries are the NATO members along with Australia, Japan and the Republic of Korea.
By remaining under the nuclear umbrella, they give weight and credence to the misguided view that nuclear weapons bring security. A rejection of the concept of extended deterrence by any one or more of these states would contribute greatly to the delegitimization of nuclear weapons and the development of a global norm against reliance on them. It would also help to pave the way to a Nuclear Weapons Convention and the elimination of nuclear weapons.
18.05 - Division Over Timeframes for Advancing Abolition
In yesterday’s Main Committee I debate, governments provided preliminary feedback on the 26-point action plan on nuclear disarmament released last Friday. France argued that the language on elimination was too strong, preferring a watered-down commitment by states to create “the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons”, rather than a commitment actually to achieve nuclear abolition.
The European Union said it would “not express itself on the issue of timeframes”, suggesting that there is division on this issue among member states. The two nuclear-weapon States in the EU (France and the United Kingdom) have resisted any attempts to set benchmarks for the implementation of the Article VI obligation to disarm, while two EU members (Austria and Norway) have gone as far as calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
Iran also expressed support for timeframes on achieving abolition, and stated its view that the Review Conference would not be successful unless it could reach an agreement to begin work on a convention: “We believe this is the time that once and for all we should set a clear deadline for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and it would be possible through the negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.”
We expect that a revised version of the 26-point disarmament action plan will be released tomorrow for further debate later this week. Many NGOs are making clear to diplomats that they support the specific proposal for the UN Secretary-General to convene an international conference before the next NPT Review Conference to consider a roadmap for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe, including by means of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
17.05 - A New Start, or More of the Same?
Last Friday, the first draft text for the NPT Review Conference was released. It includes a 26-point action plan on nuclear disarmament, which, if adopted and implemented by governments, could help to pave the way to a global ban on nuclear weapons and their time-bound elimination. Our challenge now is to ensure that the nuclear-weapon states do not water it down to the point of meaninglessness.
Adopting the language of US President Barack Obama from his landmark speech in Prague in 2009, the draft document would have the conference resolve to achieve “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”, and agree on the need to implement Article VI of the treaty — the disarmament provision — “within a time-bound framework”. Placing a timeline on multilateral disarmament would be a historical first.
Under the plan, the nuclear-weapon states would “convene consultations not later than 2011 to accelerate concrete progress on nuclear disarmament”, and subsequent to these consultations UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon would be invited to “convene an international conference in 2014 to consider ways and means to agree on a roadmap for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe, including by means of a universal, legal instrument”.
The treaty parties would affirm that all states, in particular those with nuclear weapons, must “make special efforts to establish the legal framework required to achieve the final phase of nuclear disarmament and maintain a world without nuclear weapons”. This detailed disarmament action plan would help put an end to the failed policy of nuclear arms control, and kick-start a genuine process for nuclear abolition through a binding convention. But will it be adopted?
What New Start?
This afternoon we will no doubt see strong objections raised by the nuclear-weapon states to many elements of the 26-point draft disarmament agenda. The very day that the draft text was released, the White House issued a press release outlining its plan to invest $US80 billion in modernizing its nuclear arsenal to ensure that it remains “safe, secure, and reliable”. This is not the kind of “new start” that disarmament advocates had hoped to see in the United States.
It is disingenuous at best, downright deceptive at worst, for the United States to claim that it supports the “vision” of a nuclear-weapon-free world, when at the same time it is taking steps which will all but guarantee that its nuclear forces are maintained indefinitely into the future. This kind of mass investment in nuclear weapons is a violation of the “good faith” obligation under the NPT to disarm, and yet few governments have been willing to criticize the Obama administration. That must change.
The final outcome document adopted by this Review Conference must clearly reject nuclear weapons modernization, and put a timeline on disarmament. President Obama said in Prague last year that we are unlikely to realize a nuclear-weapon-free world in his lifetime. His actions make failure all but certain. It is time to stand up against the nuclear-weapon states. There are 189 parties to the NPT, not five. The nuclear-weapon states must not be permitted to dictate the terms.
Or else our dream of a future free from the nuclear menace will remain just that — a dream.
14.05 - Main Committee I Chair's Draft on Substantive Elements
The Main Committee I Chair's Draft Report on Substantive Elements was released this afternoon at the NPT Review Conference. It sets out a 26-point action plan on nuclear disarmament, which if adopted and implemented could help to pave the way to a global ban on nuclear weapons and their elimination within an agreed timeframe. Below are some excerpts relevant to the call for a Nuclear Weapons Convention:
Review of operation:
* “The Conference notes the reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon States of their unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under article VI.”
* “The Conference agrees on the need to implement article VI within a timebound framework.”
* “The Conference welcomes proposals made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, including his five-point proposal for nuclear disarmament and action plan for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.”
* “The Conference welcomes the proposals made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, including his five-point proposal for nuclear disarmament and action plan for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.”
* “The Conference reaffirms that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.”
Action plan for implementation:
* “The Conference resolves to seek a safer world for all and to achieve the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”
* “The Conference reaffirms the unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under Article VI.”
* “The Conference affirms that all States, and in particular all States possessing nuclear weapons, need to make special efforts to establish the legal framework required to achieve the final phase of nuclear disarmament and maintain a world without nuclear weapons. The Five-Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which proposes inter alia the consideration of a nuclear weapons convention or a framework of separate mutually reinforcing instruments, backed by a strong system of verification, contributes towards this goal.”
* “The nuclear-weapon States shall convene consultations not later than 2011 to accelerate concrete progress on nuclear disarmament in a way that promotes international stability and is based on the principle of undiminished security for all …”
* “Based on the outcome of these consultations, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is invited to convene an international conference in 2014 to consider ways and means to agree on a roadmap for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe, including by means of a universal, legal instrument.”
We will provide detailed analysis on this draft report soon. The reports from Main Committees II and III, on non-proliferation and nuclear energy respectively, are also available. All documents can be downloaded: here
14.05 - It's Time to Think Outside the Bomb
For two weeks now, governments at the NPT Review Conference have been discussing nuclear postures, security assurances and the subtle details of doctrines of use — all very abstract notions, which, after a time, can make us psychically numb to the “human reality” of the problem we face. Delegitimizing nuclear weapons, and breaking down the discourses that permit their continued possession by a small number of nations, will be necessary if we’re to succeed in the campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
In the efforts to outlaw landmines and cluster munitions, the public — and eventually governments of the world — saw a clear humanitarian problem. But our response to nuclear weapons, on the whole, has been different. Despite the noble efforts of the hibakusha and of nuclear test victims to share their stories, and to show the human horror caused by these anti-human devices, we still perceive the nuclear problem largely as a political problem. That must change, if abolition is to be made a reality.
Deterring disarmament
As well as changing the way we think about nuclear weapons, we must work to break the “deadlock mentality” which, for at least a decade, has contributed to a very different kind of deterrence here at the United Nations: the deterrence of disarmament. Our willingness to rejoice in the signing of New START, for example, is proof that our expectations are far too low. Patting our leaders on the backs for their modest efforts will do little to advance the cause.
We shouldn’t believe the cynics who say that a Nuclear Weapons Convention is premature, that we cannot make the monumental shift to a nuclear-weapon-free world. Many governments said exactly the same thing about a mine ban treaty. Gareth Evans wrote in 1995 as foreign minister of Australia: “Governments have a fundamental responsibility to provide for their nations’ security and defence. That is why most governments will simply not accept a total landmines ban.” But, in turn, most did. And sooner or later the nuclear-weapon states will also accept the need for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
Paving the way to abolition
Today, Subsidiary Body I of the Review Conference — which is a closed group looking at the question of disarmament — is expected to submit its draft text to Main Committee I for debate and revision. This will be made publicly available. We urge all governments to do everything in their power to ensure that the conference outcome document, adopted at the end of the month, puts us firmly on the path to a Nuclear Weapons Convention and the complete elimination of these ultimate instruments of terror. Let us not squander the opportunity. It’s time to “think outside the bomb”.
13.05 - Laying Down the Law on Nuclear Disarmament
The tired old mantra of arms control and incremental steps is still dominating discussions at the NPT Review Conference, despite the growing push for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. All too many of the non-nuclear-weapon states seem content in seeking only the most modest action on disarmament. Their calls, for the most part, lack any sense of real urgency — even though it is clear that meaningful action for abolition is needed now, and cannot continue to be postponed.
The prevailing attitude among governments is that the NPT must be gently nursed back to “good health”, when in fact the only effective remedy to the problem is for the nuclear-weapon states to be jolted into action. A take-it-easy, business-as-usual approach will only reinforce the status quo of inaction on disarmament and the persistent threat of nuclear proliferation. Unless we radically alter the current trajectory, we will see only further disintegration of the NPT regime.
The nuclear-weapon states contend that it is premature to pursue negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention — and thus to fulfil Article VI of the treaty — even though four decades have now passed since the NPT’s entry into force. Based on this logic, should we also consider it premature to expect full compliance with the non-proliferation provisions of the treaty? This apparent double standard is certainly not in the spirit of the NPT bargain, and should be vehemently rejected.
From bad faith to good
Under the NPT, disarmament is more than a mere aspiration — it is a legal obligation. This was emphasized yesterday at events hosted by the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms. Not only must NPT parties “pursue” negotiations for disarmament, they must achieve that goal, as affirmed unanimously by the International Court of Justice in its 1996 advisory opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear-weapon states purport to be living up to their obligations — and some have even produced glossy brochures for this Review Conference showcasing their “achievements” — but there is little reason to be satisfied. Despite all the hype surrounding New START, for example, this treaty is unlikely to result in any true reduction in Russian and American nuclear forces. It must count among the most celebrated non-accomplishments in recent political history.
The NPT stipulates that negotiations for disarmament be pursued in “good faith”. Modernizing arsenals and boosting funding to nuclear weapon laboratories is a clear manifestation of bad faith. And it is not enough to dismantle a few dozen old nuclear weapons each year, when global stockpiles still number in the tens of thousands. Non-nuclear-weapon states must express their clear dissatisfaction with the lack of progress, and demand that work begin now on a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
This is the most obvious and realistic way to realize the NPT’s core promise — the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
12.05 - If Students Can Do It, Why Not the Diplomats?
Negotiations began yesterday on a Nuclear Weapons Convention — but not among governments, unfortunately. Thirty university students from Hamburg, Germany, took part in the first day of a simulation exercise organized by the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation. The students have found it to be a valuable learning experience, but it might also teach disillusioned diplomats lessons on how it can be done.
“Not good enough”
As Norway pointed out yesterday, the current rate of progress towards a nuclear-weapon-free world is just not good enough. “After 65 years with nuclear weapons and 40 years with the NPT, we cannot claim that we are where we should be with nuclear disarmament … We must establish a new international nuclear agenda with an action plan for nuclear disarmament with clear benchmarks and deadlines holding us all accountable.”
Norway argued that, if governments are to succeed in implementing Article VI of the NPT and achieve the complete elimination of nuclear forces, they will need to negotiate an additional legal instrument. “This is a topic which is becoming increasingly relevant and important,” it said. “We are likely to see more discussions on this matter in the time to come.”
A legal obligation
Indeed, yesterday in Main Committee I, the need for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention once again featured prominently, with Egypt, Malaysia and Libya, among others, raising the call. New Zealand — which votes in favour of the annual UN General Assembly resolution on a convention — welcomed the UN Secretary-General’s “strong push in his five-point plan for progress towards a world free of nuclear weapons”.
Last year, 124 governments — roughly two-thirds of all UN member states — backed the General Assembly resolution, which is a follow-up to the International Court of Justice’s landmark advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The court held, unanimously, that governments have a legal obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.
In addition to the legal obligation, they also have a moral responsibility to present and future generations to succeed.
11.05 - We Must Delegitimize Nuclear Weapons
More than four decades have passed since the NPT entered into force. Yet today many governments, particularly those in the Western Group, continue to regard nuclear weapons as legitimate instruments of national security. The few “privileged” states that possess nuclear weapons still attach great prestige to them.
If we are to succeed in the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons through a binding convention, we must effectively break down the perception of these weapons as the ultimate expression of state power. They are, in reality, instruments of terror. The process of negotiating a convention would itself have a delegitimizing effect also.
Yesterday the Swiss government, along with the Center for Nonproliferation Studies and the Monterey Institute, launched the results of a significant study aimed at debunking the theory of deterrence and delegitimizing nuclear weapons. The five authors have expertise in international law, nuclear physics, philosophy, global politics and history.
They suggest that a like-minded representative group of states, including nuclear-armed states and committed non-nuclear states, should stimulate the negotiation of a global convention prohibiting nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination. This approach, they note, is also the most likely to gain widespread public support.
Parliamentary activity
As discussions take place between diplomats in New York on advancing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, parliamentarians are also debating the issues back home. Last week, for example, the New Zealand parliament passed a unanimous resolution endorsing the UN Secretary-General’s five-point proposal on disarmament, which includes consideration of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
In March, German legislators called on their government to play an active role in the debate on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and the Bangladesh parliament passed a similar resolution in April. Many of the 700 members of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament have signed a declaration supporting a convention.
Progress in Week 1
ICAN is closely monitoring debates at the NPT Review Conference, and has compiled a list of statements in support of a Nuclear Weapons Convention made during the first week: www.icanw.org/statements. At least 25 nations expressed their individual support for negotiations on a convention. Two large groups of states also endorsed the call: the Non-Aligned Movement and the parties to regional nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties.
10.05 - Banning the Most Destructive Weapons of All
If there was a single message to come out of the NPT Review Conference on Friday, it was this: There are treaties outlawing anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions, biological weapons and chemical weapons. Why should it not be possible to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear weapons, the most destructive weapons of all?
In Main Committee I, Brazil joined the growing call for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, arguing that a successful Review Conference outcome is predicated on the definition of clear objectives on a number of points, including a commitment to the goal of concluding a Nuclear Weapons Convention “outlawing this category of weapons entirely, with a well-defined timeframe, in line with the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions”.
Civil society presentations
On Friday, non-government organizations also had an opportunity to take part formally in proceedings at the Review Conference. The urgent need for a convention was the overarching theme of the presentations. The keynote speaker, Jody Williams — an ICAN supporter who shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her involvement in the successful campaign for a mine ban treaty — said this to diplomats:
“It is time for all governments to come together — with the support of civil society around the world — to chart our course to a nuclear-free future by beginning the negotiation of a comprehensive treaty banning the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. Now. Not in years or decades. Now.”
Dr. Rebecca Johnson, vice-chair of ICAN, also urged states parties to begin the process for a convention. “Our route, timing and even humanity’s survival will depend on whether we can commit ourselves to this journey now,” she said. “This NPT Review Conference needs to agree on the treaty destination and set in motion the preparatory process and plans to get there as quickly as humanly possible.”
Building the movement
Dozens of peace and anti-nuclear groups belonging to the Abolition 2000 network — whose goal is to ensure genuine human security for all peoples — met on Sunday to develop an action plan towards a peaceful, nuclear-free world. The groups adopted a declaration, which stated: “Building on the groundswell of international public opinion, we call on all governments to begin negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention to ban all nuclear weapons by 2020.”
Public opinion is already solidly on our side. Opinion polls conducted in 21 countries in 2008 revealed that, on average, 76% of people would be happy for their government to sign on to a Nuclear Weapons Convention, with just 16% opposed to the idea. An absolute majority of respondents in all of the nuclear-armed states expressed support for a convention, except in Pakistan, which had a plurality of people in favour. In the United States, 77% endorsed the idea; in Russia, 69%; in the United Kingdom, 81%; in France, 86%; and in China, 83%.
Clearly there is a popular mandate to act. So what are governments waiting for?
7.05 - Don't Believe Those Who Tell Us It's Impossible
Yesterday morning, Ambassador Claude Heller of Mexico asked a rhetorical question of delegates attending the NPT Review Conference: if we have benchmarks and a timetable for mitigating climate change and for promoting human development, why not for eliminating nuclear weapons? He then called on the nuclear-weapon states to agree to “negotiate a convention that prohibits these weapons with a timeframe that provides certainty to the international community”.
A number of other Latin American countries also joined the call yesterday for a comprehensive nuclear abolition treaty. The Chilean ambassador, for example, stated his nation’s support for the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan on nuclear disarmament, and encouraged governments to lay the foundations at this Review Conference for discussion on a convention prohibiting nuclear weapons.
And the Holy See which is a state party to the treaty, but not a UN member also backed the idea, declaring that “the world has arrived at an opportune moment to begin addressing in a systematic way the legal, political and technical requisites for a nuclear weapons free world ... for this reason, preparatory work should begin as soon as possible on a convention or framework agreement leading to the phased elimination of nuclear weapons”.
Inter-Parliamentary Union
For many years, parliamentarians have been active in building acceptance of the need for a convention abolishing nuclear weapons. The Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has observer status at the UN, argued in its statement: “Current barriers to nuclear disarmament could be overcome through commencing a preparatory process which would explore the legal, technical, institutional and political requirements for a nuclear-weapons free world. This process could be guided, but would not be bound by, the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention circulated by the UN Secretary-General.”
NWC Now We Can
ICAN, with the support of the Permanent Mission of Norway to the UN, will hold a panel discussion today on a Nuclear Weapons Convention featuring Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams (Conference Room 4 of the UN North Lawn Building, at 1:15PM). The other panellists are ICAN vice-chair Dr. Rebecca Johnson, Dr. Gunnar Westberg from IPPNW and Senator Douglas Roche from the Middle Powers Initiative.
Each of these speakers firmly believes that now is the time to begin the process for a convention. When ICAN was launched at the NPT Preparatory Committee session in Vienna in 2007 at the start of this review cycle Jody Williams sent a powerful message of encouragement. She said: “Some governments tell us that a Nuclear Weapons Convention is premature and unlikely. Don’t believe them. They told us the same thing about a Mine Ban Treaty.”
6.05 - The Growing Tide of Support for a Convention
Yesterday more than a dozen states and groups of states mentioned the need for a Nuclear Weapons Convention in their statements at the NPT Review Conference. This vocal display of government support for a global ban on nuclear weapons is unprecedented in this forum, and it is encouraging for the many civil society groups and governments intent on shifting the focus of the debate from the failed policy of arms control to a roadmap for abolition.
Review Conference President
The President of the Review Conference, Ambassador Libran Cabactulan, whose government has become a major supporter of a convention, spoke off the cuff to a crowd of diplomats and campaigners last night at a Middle Powers Initiative (MPI) function near the UN. He reiterated his determination to ensure that the proposal for a convention is properly discussed at this Review Conference.
Douglas Roche, a former Canadian Senator and MPI chair, handed Ambassador Cabactulan the signatures of more than 500 members of the Order of Canada the nation’s highest public honour making an urgent plea for work to begin now on a nuclear abolition treaty. Parliamentarians from various national legislatures presented Cabactulan with their own global petition for a convention.
Egypt’s support for a convention
Egypt was among the many governments to come out strongly in favour of a convention yesterday, which is important given its position as chair of both the Non-Aligned Movement and New Agenda Coalition, as well as a member of the Arab and Africa groups. The head of the Egyptian delegation said: “[C]ertain challenges must be decisively confronted through the outcome to emerge from the Conference … [including] the need to create a legal framework to eliminate nuclear weapons through the conclusion of an international legally binding convention to eliminate nuclear weapons in a specified timeframe.”
Among the other supporters of a convention yesterday were Liechtenstein, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Mongolia, Tunisia, Kenya and Colombia. ICAN will circulate a complete list of supportive statements later in the week. Liechtenstein also welcomed Switzerland’s determination to work to delegitimize nuclear weapons by focusing discussions on the humanitarian risks of these weapons.
A humanitarian debate
Yesterday’s lunchtime seminar organized by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War was a helpful reminder of the “human reality” of nuclear weapons. A fortnight ago, for the first time, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross delivered a statement solely addressing the nuclear problem. His prognosis for preventing the use of nuclear weapons was simple: states must fulfil their existing obligations to prohibit and completely eliminate such weapons through a legally binding international treaty.
He also said: “[T]he debate about nuclear weapons must be conducted not only on the basis of military doctrines and power politics … The currency of this debate must ultimately be about human beings, about the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law, and about the collective future of humanity.” He went on to warn that there would be no effective international medical response to the use of a nuclear weapon.
Concern for the medical and environmental effects of nuclear weapons has been expressed in many government statements at this Review Conference. And with the new emphasis on a convention, it may be possible to begin work on such a treaty sooner than many of the sceptics would have us think although there is certainly still much work to be done.
5.05 - Defining Success: Why We Need More Than Mere Agreement
We have heard over the last two days the foreign ministers from numerous countries repeat the call for a “successful” Review Conference outcome. But what defines success? The Norwegian deputy foreign minister, Ms. Gry Larsen, said yesterday: “Our ambitions should be far higher than merely agreeing on a final document. We need an outcome document that makes a real difference.”
The Non-Aligned Movement has made it clear that movement towards a Nuclear Weapons Convention is “integral” to any agreed plan of action at the conference. Some European countries have also expressed support for an abolition-focused outcome. This Friday, Norway will co-sponsor an event with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons titled “Nuclear Weapons Convention: Now We Can”, which will explore the political and legal requirements of achieving zero.
China remains the only NPT nuclear-weapon state to have expressed its support for such an approach, although the United Kingdom has accepted that a convention will likely be necessary at some point in the future. The Chinese head of delegation, Mr. Li Baodong, argued yesterday that “[t]he international community should develop, at an appropriate time, a viable, long-term plan composed of phased actions, including a convention on the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons”.
The final government speaker on the second day of the conference was Mr. Nasser Bin Abdulaziz Al-Nasser of Qatar, who stressed that the Review Conference should adopt an action plan to eliminate nuclear weapons, and concluded on this optimistic note: “We hope that we will not wait long before we celebrate a universal treaty for disarmament and prohibition of nuclear weapons, for this has legal and political importance.”
Campaigners and diplomats met at lunchtime to examine ways to advance the idea of a Nuclear Weapons Convention at this Review Conference. The model convention developed by civil society was presented as a useful tool with which to stimulate debate. Ban Ki-moon described it in 2008 as a “good point of departure” for actual negotiations.
Ten key arguments for advancing a Nuclear Weapons Convention now are:
1. The minimalist approach to nuclear disarmament has proven inadequate: It is time to move beyond nuclear arms control, and begin a process for nuclear abolition. The NPT has helped to prevent the uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons, but governments will need to negotiate a complementary legal framework in order to achieve abolition.
2. A Nuclear Weapons Convention would help to implement Article VI of the NPT: The negotiation of a convention is the most obvious and realistic way for states to fulfil their obligation to disarm. A convention would strengthen the NPT in the same way that other treaties such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and US–Russian bilateral arms reduction treaties have also strengthened it.
3. There is overwhelming support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention: In 2009, 124 states voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution calling for the immediate commencement of negotiations leading to a convention, and opinion polls in 21 countries show that, on average, 76% of people globally support the idea of a verifiable nuclear abolition treaty.
4. There is a legal obligation to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention: In 1996, the International Court of Justice affirmed that all states, including those outside the NPT, have a legal obligation to pursue negotiations for nuclear disarmament and to achieve the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Like any legal obligation, it cannot be postponed indefinitely.
5. A convention would bridge the disarmament–non-proliferation divide: The process of negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention would help to bridge the rift between non-proliferation-first and disarmament-first advocates by addressing both non-proliferation and disarmament simultaneously. It does so by adopting an abolition approach.
6. A convention would facilitate the engagement of states outside the NPT: The general obligations contained in a Nuclear Weapons Convention would apply equally to all parties. In this respect, it would differ from the NPT, which establishes different standards for the five states that tested nuclear weapons before 1967.
7. A convention is compatible with the advancement of intermediate steps: A convention would complement goals such as the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the negotiation of a fissile materials treaty, and the conclusion of a more comprehensive arms reduction treaty between the US and Russia. Negotiations for all of these could take place simultaneously.
8. A Nuclear Weapons Convention would help to build trust among nations: It would promote greater transparency and accountability in the disarmament process by establishing the systems needed to verify the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Trust would develop over the course of the treaty’s implementation.
9. Conventions have been negotiated to outlaw other categories of weapons: Biological and chemical arms, as well as anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions, have been banned through conventions. Nuclear weapons are the only “weapons of mass destruction” that have not yet been banned, despite the fact that their destructive potential is greater than that of any other weapon.
10. The political climate is right to pursue the abolition of nuclear weapons: Some leaders have recently expressed support for the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world. However, without a clear roadmap to zero, this “vision” is unlikely to be realized in the foreseeable future, if at all. At this Review Conference, governments must seize the historic opportunity to advance disarmament by agreeing to begin work on a convention.
4.05 - How Long Must We Wait for Nuclear Abolition?
Ambassador Libran Cabactulan of the Philippines opened the NPT Review Conference yesterday with a call for states parties to redouble their efforts for a world free of nuclear weapons. “The world expects a positive outcome, and we must deliver. This is our duty, as diplomats, to our leaders and to our people.” On Sunday he received signatures from 20 million people more than half of them Japanese citizens demanding urgent action on a global ban on nuclear weapons.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has adopted nuclear disarmament one of his central objectives, made similar remarks to assembled foreign ministers and diplomats. “Hopes and expectations are high. The world’s people look to you for action.” He challenged the states parties to “take steps that will set the stage for a breakthrough”, and reminded them of his five-point plan, which includes consideration of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
The first government speaker of the day was Dr. Marty Natalegawa, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, who delivered a statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, which expressed support for a convention and an unwillingness to accept an outcome document that fails to advance disarmament: “The consideration of a Nuclear Weapons Convention banning all nuclear weapons, as mentioned in Article VI of the [NPT], should begin and should be an integral part of any plan of action on nuclear disarmament to be adopted by this Conference.”
Dr. Natalegawa also noted his own country’s endorsement of the growing call to begin work on a convention: “We must work intensively together to produce a universal Nuclear Weapons Convention with a specific timeline for the attainment of complete nuclear disarmament. For the eradication of nuclear weapons is our only assurance that they will never be used.”
Austria reiterated its firm commitment to a convention, which was first announced at last year’s historic session of the UN Security Council on nuclear issues. Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger argued yesterday that “the most effective way to move towards global zero is through a universal legal instrument, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, equipped with a strict multilateral verification system”.
“The Austrian government and the legislature which recently adopted a formal resolution on a world without nuclear weapons will closely examine how disarmament is dealt with at this Conference,” Mr. Spindelegger said. “If there is no clear progress towards global zero, we will discuss with partners the feasibility of a global instrument to ban these weapons.”
He acknowledged that the NPT remains the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, but emphasized that “a static regime that has lost its vision may benefit from fresh ideas”. He also recalled that Austria had played an active role in bringing about and successfully concluding negotiations on the Mine Ban Treaty and, more recently, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, indicating that a similar process might be effective for nuclear weapons.
For the first time, the government of Switzerland also expressed clear support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. It is one of the few nations outside the Non-Aligned Movement that have resolved it is time for a convention. Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey stressed the humanitarian risks of nuclear weapons and stated: “[W]e must outlaw nuclear weapons, specifically by means of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General.”
The need for a Nuclear Weapons Convention was also discussed at yesterday’s briefing session held by the co-chairs of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, a joint initiative of the Japanese and Australian governments. Gareth Evans, from Australia, said that he has encountered “quite a degree of sympathy” among consulted nations and NGOs for beginning work on a convention.
He argued that governments should agree at this Review Conference to begin preparatory work on the comprehensive abolition treaty, “not in five or 10 years’ time, but now”. He also called on governments to support the establishment of a global centre for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation whose objectives would include laying the foundations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
Yoriko Kawaguchi of Japan, the other co-chair of ICNND, expressed her disappointment that the Japanese and Australian governments had not gone further on disarmament in their action plan submitted to the Review Conference. Both governments have so far resisted calls from their civil societies to endorse the UN Secretary-General's push for a convention.
The first day of the Review Conference ended with a poignant reminder of why we are working for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Hibakusha Stories hosted a moving event in the UN lobby with the many survivors of the atomic bombings who have made the journey to New York for the Review Conference. Their message is simple and powerful: no one should ever again suffer as they have.
No doubt, these hibakusha have asked themselves on many occasions the same question that Ban Ki-moon posed to delegates in the morning session: “How long must we wait to rid ourselves of this threat? How long will we keep passing the problem to succeeding generations?”
3.05 - A Nuclear Weapons Convention: Now We Can
The NPT Review Conference begins today with the foreign ministers of 19 states, as well as the President of Iran and Deputy Prime Minister of Luxembourg, delivering opening statements in the General Assembly Hall. At the conference, many civil society groups have adopted the slogan “Nuclear Weapons Convention: Now We Can” in an attempt to focus debate on the task of abolishing nuclear weapons, not just preventing their spread.
Although nuclear issues have gained new prominence on the international agenda over the last year or two, there has been little discussion on the steps needed to achieve disarmament. A re-affirmation of the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to disarm would be welcome, but in and of itself it is unlikely to lead to the deep and irreversible cuts in global arsenals we need if global zero is to be reached in the foreseeable future. It’s time for bold new thinking.
In the lead-up to this Review Conference, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has repeatedly called on NPT parties to fulfil their obligation to disarm by pursuing negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, backed by a strong system of verification, or a framework of mutually reinforcing agreements for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Speaking at the Riverside Church on Saturday, he said, “Nuclear disarmament is not a distant, unattainable goal; it is an urgent necessity. Here, now, we are determined to achieve it.” He commended civil society for the enthusiasm with which it has embraced his five-point plan on disarmament, particularly the call for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
The Non-Aligned Movement, which makes up a large majority of the parties to the NPT, has long supported the idea of a convention. Last Thursday it released an action plan on nuclear disarmament calling for an international conference at the earliest possible stage to negotiate an agreement for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame.
It envisages that the treaty would enter into force some time between 2015 and 2020, and that elimination would be achieved between 2020 and 2025. These targets are ambitious, but they are also realistic. They treat the problem with the urgency it deserves and requires. There should be no reason why states outside NAM are unable to adopt a similar position going into this Review Conference, in order to ensure a consensus agreement on a convention.
The International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), a joint initiative of the Japanese and Australian governments, released its major report, Eliminating Nuclear Threats, last year. It argued: “There is no reason why detailed further work on such a convention should not commence now, and with government support.” These two governments should join others like Austria, the Philippines, Malaysia and Costa Rica in leading the push for a convention. The ICNND co-chairs, Gareth Evans and Yoriko Kawaguchi, will brief delegates at lunchtime today (details below).
Civil society is clearly committed to the idea of a global ban. Yesterday 10,000 demonstrators young and old, from dozens of countries marched from Times Square to the UN to voice their support. The mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led the march with the call, “No more Hiroshimas. No more Nagasakis. Abolish nuclear weapons now.” We make up only a small sample of the many millions around the world who are part of the growing call for an abolition treaty. What will it take for government decision-makers to listen and act?
Wishing for a successful Review Conference,
Tim Wright
NWC Project Coordinator
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Av Tim Wright - lagt ut med tillatelse av Dordi Lea - 10.05.2010