Costs, risks, and myths of nuclear power
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
In pursuit of nuclear disarmament
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
The world is watching
Susi Snyder & Rhianna Tyson | Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
The Conference of Disarmament saw another set of lively plenary meetings of structured debate with special focus on nuclear disarmament under the sub-item ‘Future nuclear disarmament measures’. Pakistan, Malaysia, India, Algeria, China, Russian Federation,Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, Nigeria, Morocco, Switzerland, Ireland, Canada, Sri Lanka, Italy and Brazil delivered statements in the morning; and Cuba, UK, Chile and Sweden in the afternoon.
Several delegations, including Algeria, DPRK, Nigeria, and Ireland pointed out that quantitative reduction of nuclear arsenals seem to be accompanied by qualitative improvements of the same. Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan noted the disturbing fact that “Development and actual battlefield use of mini-nukes have been theorised”.
Ambassador Valery Loshchinin of the Russian Federation stated that new challenges in proliferation need to be dealt with within the NPT regime especially by the IAEA, regarding Iran and DPRK. He expressed the importance of Iran renewing the moratoria on uranium enrichment. Ambassador Loshchinin, supported by delegations of China, Morocco and the DPRK, also pointed out the need for nuclear weapon states to withdraw and bring home all nuclear weapons outside their own territory.
The issue of transparency gained attention in the plenary. Ambassador Mary Whelan of Ireland spoke on the important role of increased transparency for creating a favorable climate to progress nuclear disarmament. States possessing nuclear weapons should develop an understanding among themselves about the level of detail required to build confidence in the disarmament process. She suggested plurilateral scientific consultations among states possessing nuclear weapons on the “verification requirements for the implementation of effective and irreversible disarmament measures”, as well as regular progress reports to the CD.
“Transparency can also help confirm that nuclear material in weapons removed from deployment… is not being recycled into new warheads.”, stated Ambassador Whelan. Annika Thunborg of Sweden echoed the same, in relation to the Moscow Treaty between Russia and the US: as the destruction of warheads is not required by the treaty, these could easily be fitted to new weapons. Sweden asked the nuclear weapons states to provide concrete reports and plans to the CD for the destruction of weapons Thunborg further looked forward to specific and detailed information on arsenal reductions in written form, as well as answers to the questions posed by her delegation 28 February. Statements by Switzerland, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Nigeria and Canada all called for greater transparency, pointing it out as one link between nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In this regard, Fiona Paterson informed the CD that the explosive power of the UK nuclear arsenal has been reduced by 70 % since the end of the Cold War.
The plenary heard a number of delegations present concrete proposals for next steps on nuclear disarmament in the CD- the theme of the day’s plenary session. Malaysia noted the importance of considering “the requirements for a comprehensive nuclear disarmament regime in order to develop an international understanding of the final destination” and provided seven suggestions toward that end. Algeria suggested that efforts on nuclear disarmament could continue either globally- all at once, or gradually- in a step-wise process. While the global approach could learn lessons from the demonstrated effectiveness of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Ambassador Jazairy noted that gradual steps would find favor with more delegations. Certain measures were suggested to build confidence between nuclear and non nuclear weapons states including the reduction of the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, and the removal of nuclear weapons from alert status. Other delegations also noted the importance of removing nuclear weapons from alert status- including India, Algeria, and Sweden.
Ambassador François Rivasseau of France spoke on the scope of a future FMCT. He suggested that solution to the verification aspect has to be found in the course of negotiations. Chile’s Ambassador Juan Martabit proposed that the CD consider incremental negotiations on an FMCT that would tackle the verification issue in the near future. Canada listed issues with potential for the CD to engage in, e.g. the role of nuclear weapons in national security doctrines; confidence building measures; non-strategic nuclear weapons and dismantlement disposition.
The issue of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ) and Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) were mentioned by some delegations. Chile stated that his delegation does not accept that nuclear weapon states not Parties to the NPT are not legally bound to grant NSAs to non nuclear weapon states.
Rotating CD President In-kook Park of the Republic of Korea summed up the debate held on nuclear disarmament this week, commending the more than 40 Member States that took the floor and contributed useful ideas and suggestions. In order to stimulate and structure the upcoming general debate on agenda items 1 and 2, the President extricated four commonly brought up issues from previous statements: the role of nuclear weapons in security policies; ways to strengthen transparency; the principle of irreversibility, and FMCT, each of which will be the sub-theme of upcoming plenary sessions. We look forward to further substantive debate, eventually leading to negotiations towards the ultimate goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons. In the words of Nigerian Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu – “nobody can proliferate what does not exist while those determined will proliferate what exists no matter what control measures put in place”.
Alexandra Sundberg
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Rhianna Tyson, Project Associate
Last week, Romania, Mongolia and Mexico took the floor at the Conference on Disarmament. Mexico's Ambassador Pablo Macedo, outgoing President of the CD, delivered two separate statements.
All statements from the 2004 session can be found at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches04/index.html
Romania's Ambassador Doru Costea informed the Conference of the third meeting of the National Authorities of the Eastern European States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, held in Bucharest from 17 to 19 May. At that meeting, States Parties discussed ways in which to fulfill the objectives of the Article VII Action Plan which calls upon States Parties to, inter alia, enact the necessary national legislation, including penal legislation, to implement the Convention and to provide the Secretariat with the full text of their national implementing legislation. Participants at the Bucharest meeting also discussed ways of enhancing the efficacy of the CWC's National Implementation Measures.
Mongolia's Ambassador Bekhbat, the incoming President of the CD, stated that he plans to continue holding informal plenaries directly after the formal plenaries, based on the schedule devised by Ambassador Macedo. The remaining sessions are scheduled as follows:
June 3: Effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (NSA).
June 10: New types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons.
June 17: Comprehensive program of disarmament.
June 24: Transparency in armaments.
With the end of the second session of 2004 drawing near, he urged all Member States to maximize the few weeks that remain.
Ambassador Macedo used his time on the floor to present his own summary of the informal discussions that had taken place under his presidency, with the hopes of identifying the major themes which could guide the efforts of the Conference to break the near eight year deadlock.
Ambassador Macedo remains convinced that the A5 Proposal "continues to represent the closest formula to consensus" for a program of work for the Conference. No delegation under his presidency proposed a change to the A5 proposal, although some delegations, he noted, consider that the newer version "is not as ambitious" as some would have hoped.
He stressed the importance of nuclear disarmament and the unequivocal undertaking to abolish nuclear weapons as promised by the nuclear powers in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT, a document that proved to be highly contentious atthis past PrepCom in New York. Member States, according to Ambassador Macedo, also stressed the importance of the CTBT's entry-into-force as well as the conclusion of negotiations of an FMCT based upon the Shannon Mandate. The outgoing president also emphasized that disarmament and nonproliferation, "two sides of the same coin," are complementary and mutually reinforcing. He deemed that "it is also worthy to mention" the present challenges of security, including terrorism and the possible acquisition by non-state actors of nuclear weapons materials.
The Mexican ambassador then broached two proposals that "could impel activity of the Conference."
First, he discussed the idea of an "evaluation" of the progress made in nuclear disarmament. Such a study could examine what steps toward disarmament have already been taken, what actions have been undertaken to curb both horizontal as well as vertical proliferation, and also examine what else needs to be done in both of these mutually reinforcing challenges. "In order to carry out such exercise," said the ambassador, "a significant level of transparency is necessary." He suggested also that the Conference dedicate "a series of sessions to analyze" the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines.
Secondly, he discussed the possible establishment of a Group of Experts to approach technical questions related to a Treaty for the Prohibition of the Production of Nuclear Fuel. He reminded the Conference that "several decades ago, the Conference did something similar with respect to the prohibition of the nuclear tests," a study which helped "identify delicate questions related to the verification" now at work under the CTBTO. Such an approach, he suggested, "would contribute valuable elements that would allow better understanding of" the prohibition of nuclear fuel.
While he felt that "these two concrete proposals deserve to be studied," they should not detract "attention (from) our main preoccupation, the adoption of a work program." And with that he wished Ambassador Bekhbat the best of luck as he assumes the presidency for the end of this second session.
All statements can be found at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches04/index.html
See UNOG Press Releases at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/press04/pressindex.html
This and all other CD Advisories can be found at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches04/advisories.html
************************************************
More...
Dear Reaching Critical Will friends and advisors:
The Conference on Disarmament (CD) has met for its first three plenary meetings of 2009, each of which has featured an interesting discussion on questions of regional security, military spending, and civil society participation. Regarding the latter, several delegations supported increased engagement between the Conference and civil society. Austria's Ambassador Strohal noted that time and again "cooperation between governments, parliaments and civil society" has been beneficial to "other security related initiatives" and that "success in the field of disarmament in general will depend not only on a full commitment on the political level but on a strong involvement by our civil societies as well."
In the spirit of strong involvement of civil society and cooperation between governmental and non-governmental actors, Reaching Critical Will encourages our readers to take action. On 15 January, the E-News announced an opportunity for NGOs to make submissions to the Australian government's review of its nuclear treaties - submissions will be accepted until 15 February. Another chance to contribute to global disarmament efforts is the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, which will next meet in Washington, DC on 13 February. Civil society organisations in Australia and Japan are forming an NGO Shadow Commission and are welcoming groups from all of the ICNND Commission countries to join. Please contact WILPF International's Vice President Felicity Hill at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or more information. Also see Reaching Critical Will's Action page to learn about more oppotunities for getting involved.
In peace and action,
Ray Acheson, Project Director
1) Resources on anti-nuclear nuclearism
From Darwin BondGraham and Will Parrish, "Anti-nuclear Nuclearism," Foreign Policy in Focus, 12 January 2009
Anti-nuclear nuclearism is a foreign and military policy that replies upon overwhelming U.S. power, including the nuclear arsenal, but makes rhetorical and even some substantive commitments to disarmament, however vaguely defined. Anti-nuclear nuclearism thrives as a school of thought in several think tanks that have long influenced foreign policy choices related to global nuclear forces. Even the national nuclear weapons development labs in New Mexico and California have been avid supporters and crafters of it.
As a policy, anti-nuclear nuclearism is designed to ensure U.S. nuclear and military dominance by rhetorically calling for what has long been derided as a naïve ideal: global nuclear disarmament. Unlike past forms of nuclearism, it de-emphasizes the offensive nature of the U.S. arsenal. Instead of promoting the U.S. stockpile as a strategic deterrence or umbrella for U.S. and allied forces, it prioritizes an aggressive diplomatic and military campaign of nonproliferation. Nonproliferation efforts are aimed entirely at other states, especially non-nuclear nations with suspected weapons programs, or states that can be coerced and attacked under the pretense that they possess nuclear weapons or a development program (e.g. Iraq in 2003).
Effectively pursuing this kind of belligerent nonproliferation regime requires half-steps toward cutting the U.S. arsenal further, and at least rhetorically recommitting the United States to international treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It requires a fig leaf that the United States isn't developing new nuclear weapons, and that it is slowly disarming and de-emphasizing its nuclear arsenal. By these means the United States has tried to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, even though it has designed and built newly modified weapons with qualitatively new capacities over the last decade and a half. Meanwhile, U.S. leaders have allowed for and even promoted a mass proliferation of nuclear energy and material, albeit under the firm control of the nuclear weapons states, with the United States at the top of this pile.
Many disarmament proponents were elated last year when four extremely prominent cold warriors — George P. Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn — announced in a series of op-eds their commitment to "a world free of nuclear weapons." Strange bedfellows indeed for the cause. Yet the fine print of their plan, published by the Hoover Institute and others since then, represents the anti-nuclear nuclearist platform to a tee. It's a conspicuous yet merely rhetorical commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. These four elder statesmen have said what many U.S. elites have rarely uttered: that abolition is both possible and desirable. However, the anti-nuclear posture in their policy proposal comes to bear only on preventing non-nuclear states from going nuclear, or else preventing international criminal conspiracies from proliferating weapons technologies and nuclear materials for use as instruments of non-state terror. In other words, it's about other people's nuclear weapons, not the 99% of materials and arms possessed by the United States and other established nuclear powers.
This position emphasizes an anti-nuclear politics entirely for what it means for the rest of the world — securing nuclear materials and preventing other states from going nuclear or further developing their existing arsenals. U.S. responsibility to disarm remains in the distant future, unaddressed as a present imperative.
Please go to http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5782 to continue reading this article.
For more information, please see:
Darwin BondGraham on the Wall Street Journal op-ed http://darwinbondgraham.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-january-2007-four-elder-statesmen.html
2) Brief overview of the new US administration's take on space weapons and missile "defence"
On 20 January 2009, US President Obama reportedly pledged to seek a "'worldwide ban' on weapons that could be used against military or commercial satellites." Results of the Congressionally-mandated Space Posture Review, due December, are expected to further formulate the Obama administrations national space policy. Obama's statement, however, did not "entirely" rule out "military action to defend U.S. spacecraft."
According to Reuters, Obama's administration will also review plans to deploy elements of its ballistic missile "defence" system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Michele Flournoy, undersecretary for policy at the Pentagon, said the plans should be reviewed as part of a regular broad look at policy, known as the quadrennial defense review, or QDR, due to take place this year. However, Flournoy also indicated it is in US interests to "cooperate" with Russia on missile defence, providing further indications that "reducing tensions with Russia" over the plans to install missile "defence" systems in Eastern Europe means bringing Russia into the fold, not withdrawing the plans themselves. Russian officials have previously rejected US offers of cooperation as "insufficient", though they have not ruled it out as an option altogether. Since this review has been announced, the Russian government declared a halt to its own plans to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad in response to US missiles in Eastern Europe.
It is also important to remember that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates supports missile "defence" in general and the plans for US interceptors and radars in Europe. In addition, Obama has picked a former Raytheon lobbyist, William Lynn, to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Raytheon is one of the major US missile defence contractors. While Obama previously "vowed to stop the revolving door that lets onetime lobbyists go to work for the Federal Government and oversee contracts that could harm—or help—their former employer," administration officials said the loophole was allowed because Lynn is "uniquely qualified" for the job. Danielle Brian, head of the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group in Washington, pointed out, "While Lynn may be well qualified, it is absurd to argue that he is uniquely qualified. There are plenty of people with far greater business-management experience than that of a lobbyist." Likewise, Time Magazine argues, "the idea that Lynn is 'uniquely qualified'—the White House's language—for the post is simply bogus. The phrase doesn't mean merely good or talented; it means that Lynn, of all the possible candidates for the position, is the only person who could fill it."
3) International Conference on missile "defence" in the Asia Pacific to convene in April
From Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
International Conference against the Asia Pacific Missile Defense and for the End of Arms Race
Seoul, South Korea | 16-18 April 2009
1. Background Information
The 17th annual conference of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space will be held in Seoul, Korea from April 16-18, 2009, under the title of the 2009 International Conference against the Asia Pacific Missile Defense and for the End of Arms Race.
The Korean committee for the conference, lead by the Peace Network (Korean), (English) and Center for Peace and Disarmament, People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (Korean), (English) and is formed by 10 peace organizations is the Co-Sponsor with the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space for this conference.
The signs of a 'new cold war' are brewing as the U.S. pushes ahead with the missile defense (MD) system installations in Eastern Europe against Russia's strong opposition. There is an urgent need for the international civil society to respond against the current rapid arms race in the Asia Pacific where the US leads the Asia Pacific MD efforts, supported strongly by Japan, Australia and South Korea; against the frontline of opposition formed by China, Russia and North Korea.
The MD issue is becoming the core element of the destabilization of peace in Northeast Asia, not to mention the Korean peninsula, especially when the U.S. intends to make South Korea its MD outpost and the Lee Myung Bak government promotes stronger US-South Korea alliance and the US-South Korea-Japan trilateral system formation.
By this great chance, the Korea Committee points out the Korean peace issues within the international peace movement circles, and wants to share international understanding and cooperation about Korean peninsula's peace and reunification issues.
In light of such concerns, holding an international peace conference in South Korea on missile defense and arms race issues will provide an important momentum in bringing the issues pertaining to the Korean peninsula-one of the last divided countries by the cold war in the world- and the North East Asia to the international community and in developing international solidarity.
We, the Korea Committee is already excited and grateful by many international participants' enthusiasm to participate. Above all, we, the Korean Committee welcomes everyone in the world, who wants to share the urgent issues in each country regarding the Missile defense, military base, arms race etc. issues and to promote further international solidarity one another.
2. Summary of the International Conference
Official event dates: April 16 to 18, 2009
- Core issues: MD and space weaponization; Arms race and arms reduction; US bases and the peace movement in Northeast Asia; and global meaning of the peaceful reunification process in Korea etc.
- Main events: International symposium (Seoul), International news conference (Seoul), Visit to Panmunjeom, Peace campaign (Pyeongtaek) and GN annual strategy and business meeting (Seoul)
- Interpretation: International symposium will be translated in Korean and English simultaneously while the other programs will be done consecutively. The GN annual strategy and business meeting will be done in English. For the effective usage of time, we integrated the whole program rather than having separate workshops.
3. Daily events and programs of the GN International Conference(Consecutive Interpretation)
(1). April 16, 2009 (Thursday)
09:00(07:00)-15:00(17:30): International participants trip to Panmunjeom(the symbol of Korean division, http://koreadmztour.com/english/tour/tour2.htm) or Visit to the vicinity of the DMZ(Imjingak, Dorasan observatory etc.)/meeting with activists/cultural event etc as a plan B
18:00-21:00: dinner and entertainment(including the speech by 3~4 GN participants)
(2). April 17, 2009 (Friday): International meeting (Simultaneous interpretation)
9:00-10:00 Foreign and domestic press conference (consecutive translation)
9:45-10:00: Registration
10:00-10:10: Welcome speech (Korean dignitary)
10:10-10:20: Greeting speech (GN Chairman )
10:20-10:40: Keynote speech, "Star Wars (space weaponization), Future Warfare, and the Global Peace" (GN)
10:40-12:20: Plenary session I "MD and the World"
10:40-11:00: The MD policy of the overall and Obama government (USA participant)
11:00-11:20: MD, Europe and the New Cold War including the NATO missile defense(European participant): 11:20-11:40: MD, Arms Race and the Future of the North East Asia(Korean participant):
11:40-12:00: What is the alternative against the MD?: Nuclear Disarmament and Conversion of the Military Industrial Complex(GN participant)
12:00-12:20: Q and A
12:20-14:00: Lunch and break (There will be short presentation(about 4min.) of the slide projection )
14:00-15:20: Plenary session II "Global Anti-War and Peace Movements"
* Each international participant requested to give a ten minute speech on the MD and No US bases movements; and Q&A. The participants from GN are cordially asked to give a speech.
15:20-15:30: Break
15:30-17:00: Plenary session III " Korea, Japan and the Northeast Asia Peace
15:30-16:00: Peace Constitution in Japan and the Northeast Asia Peace (Japanese participant):
16:00-16:30: Korea Peace and Reunification Process and the Northeast Asia Peace (Korean participant): ?
16:30-17:00: Q& A
17:00: Closing the symposium
18:00-21:00: Dinner and Entertainment: includes three Keynote speeches
(3) April 18, 2009 (Saturday) (English)
9:00-12:00: GN Annual Strategy and Business Meeting
12:00-13:00: Lunch
13:00-20:00: visit and rally/ protest in front of the military base in Pyeongtaek (the emerging hub of US military bases in construction) and dinner meeting with the local peace organizations
(4). Official Conference and Stay site
Seoul Women's Plaza, Seoul, from April 15 to April 19(During the given official dates above, no stay cost by the international participants. The Korean Committee is reserving seven western-style two-bed rooms and seven Korean-style two bed rooms except for the special request. The rooms are the building can best afford. Reservation for the first comers, first. The international participant may pay for other nights at low cost or request for the info. of home stay/ other hotels as alternative. Regarding stay, please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
4) Pouring water on the fire of military spending
Several articles providing arguments against increased military spending as a reasonable response to the financial crisis have been released recently. All of them point out the counterproductive nature of giving money to the US Department of Defense in order to increase jobs.
In the Washington Times, William Hartung and Christopher Preble argue, "The defense budget is not a jobs program, nor should it be. Decisions on how many Humvees to buy, or how many bases to refurbish, should rest on military necessity, not economic expedience subject to political chicanery."
See William Hartung and Christopher Preble, "Defense Doesn't Need Stimulus," The Washington Times, 28 January 2009.
In CounterPunch, William T. Wheeler notes, "if employment is the aim, it makes more sense to cut defence spending and use the money in programmes that do it better."
See Winslow T. Wheeler, "Save the Economy by Cutting the Defense Budget," CounterPunch, 27 January 2009.
In addition, Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group (LASG) argued in a recent letter, "there could be a temptation, what with very large financial bailouts and large economic stimuli passing and under discussion in Congress, to consider defense spending and Weapons Activities spending in particular as useful forms of economic stimuli. Relative to almost any other use for federal money, they aren't." He goes on to cite a recent study (pdf) "of the relative merits of various forms of fiscal stimulus" done by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier at the University of Massachusetts in 2007, noting, "health care or home weatherization creates about 1.50 times as many jobs as defense spending, education 2.07 times as many, and mass transit 2.31 times as many. Total wages and benefits are also higher."
5) Nobel Laureates send a letter to US President Obama on the abolition of nuclear weapons
On 20 January 2009, twelve Nobel Prize Laureates and a former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations addressed US President Barack Obama on nuclear disarmament. In an open letter, they reminded President Obama of his promise to seek a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. Pointing to the shortfalls of the existing international regime for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, Sir Harold Kroto (Nobel Prize for Chemistry), Member of the Advisory Board of INES, and his co-signers remind Barack Obama of the recent suggestion by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to use the existing Model Nuclear Weapons Convention as a starting point for the path into a nuclear weapons free world.
Letter Text
An initiative of International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES)
International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP)
20 January, 2009
Open Letter to the President of the United States of America Barack Obama
Dear Mr. President,
Much hope has been created in your nation and in the entire world due to your election as President of the United States of America.
We are inspired by your public statements, that you will seek a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. This fundamental change of thinking deserves our full support. We agree that the dangers of existing nuclear arsenals of the five acknowledged nuclear weapon states and the four de-facto nuclear weapon states (more than 100,000 Hiroshima bomb equivalents) as well as the dramatically increasing risks of nuclear proliferation to other states and terrorists require new political concepts and technical approaches. Nuclear weapons are inherently inhumane because they can cause the extinction of all humankind and have long-term genetic and ecological effects.
The world desperately needs a conspicuous signal of commitment and willingness by the nuclear weapon states to eliminate their arsenals as well as a convincing and irreversible plan to achieve a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World, one which can be secured and stabilized against possible new proliferators and which would be enshrined in international law.
We would like to offer our support in helping to conceptualize and elaborate the details of a plan towards this goal meeting the demands for new thinking and for realistically feasible action.
Our proposal today is to start negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention now. The pattern has to be the one which has already been set by the Biological and the Chemical Weapons Conventions – a total ban. A Nuclear Weapons Convention should not be regarded as a premature jump to a distant goal. Instead, it establishes the framework for a logical sequence of steps that ensure the safe transition to the complete disarmament of nuclear weapons in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. The Convention should guarantee the irreversibility of disarmament and security against break-out scenarios by using stringent verification measures, preventive control measures leading to non-accessibility to proliferation-prone nuclear materials and technology.
We would like to encourage you to take the lead in this direction. We believe that the arguments for choosing this path are irrefutable.
We briefly outline a few of these:
• If a smaller number of states continue to possess nuclear weapons and have plans to use them to enforce regional security or their global interests that will certainly increase the perceived "value" of these weapons and thus dangers of proliferation. Steps aiming at only reduced arsenals will not suffice, since there is no permanent stability at low numbers. There are only two options: one is the progression down to zero; in the absence of a serious move to zero, the other option is the spread of nuclear weapons to many nations. Any argument in favour of maintaining nuclearweapons is an unwanted and dangerous support for nuclear weapon related activities in other states. Thus, maintaining the arsenals increases the danger of further spread of these weapons. North Korea and other countries should not be given an excuse by the nuclear-weapons-based rationale of those countries that still maintain nuclear arsenals and doctrines.
• Two decades after the end of the Cold War and four decades after finalization of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the time is ripe for the nuclear weapon states to fully comply with the spirit and letter of NPT Preamble and Article VI. The world has lost trust in the repeated declarations of nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapon states. Instead, the world sees the stabilization and modernisation of nuclear arsenals without fundamental changes and, even worse, that nuclear strategies tend to reduce the threshold to nuclear weapons use.
• We recall the 13 steps noted in the Final Document of the NPT Review Conference of 2000 asking for the abolition of all nuclear arsenals to which all States parties are committed. In particular, we recall the promise of an unequivocal undertaking of the five acknowledged nuclear weapon states for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Further, we recall the globally accepted interpretation of the NPT norms and goals as recorded in the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament objectives of the NPT Review and Extension Conference of 1995. Thus, we as world citizens are awaiting a substantial move from the side of the nuclear weapon states.
• We recall the Advisory Opinion issued on 8 July 1996 by the International Court of Justice on the illegality of the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons. The Court called for a legally binding instrument filling the gap in international law as promised in Article VI of the NPT by negotiating in good faith the global ban of nuclear weapons and bringing the negotiations to a conclusion by a new Treaty.
• A carefully elaborated Model Nuclear Weapons Convention has already been developed and released by NGOs in 1996 and revised in 2007; it was first submitted in 1997 to the UN Secretary-General and in a revised version in 2007. On 18 January 2008, the UN Secretary-General has circulated it as UN Document No. A/62/650 to all UN member States at the request of Costa Rica and Malaysia. On 24 October 2008, United Nations Day, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon gave a landmark speech, entitled "The United Nations and Security in a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World", in which he called on governments to fulfill their nuclear disarmament
obligations. He gave a five-point disarmament plan calling for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention and recommended the
existing Model Convention to be used as a starting point.
• The NPT might not be the suitable framework for the entire path towards total elimination. First, the NPT has been criticized for its
loopholes allowing further spread of nuclear weapons. Second, the NPT is regarded by many as discriminatory in nature and unjust in practice. Third, the disarmament objective is not elaborated in detail. Further, the NPT can hardly be universalized because the de-facto nuclear weapon states cannot be drawn in by signing the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states. Indeed, there have been encouragements to stay outside such as by the Indo-US nuclear co-operation agreement. Finally, the NPT cannot be sustained when nuclear weapon states give up their status as this is defined in Article IX (3). Thus the Nuclear Weapons Convention would eliminate the contradictions and weaknesses of the NPT and could substantially increase effectiveness against further proliferation.
We know quite well that the Nuclear-Weapon-Free World will not come overnight. We are also aware that other fundamental questions regarding peaceful and just living together of people and nations will be on the agenda when the renouncing of nuclear weapons by their possessors will become reality. However, we are convinced that the process of negotiations has to be started right now. Only then, we can expect to bring in the harvest of this undertaking within the coming ten to twenty years.
Please, act now and take the lead in starting negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The people and nations of the world will follow suit, we are sure.
We hope that we can join you in your efforts towards this challenging goal, which is deeply rooted in our respect to humankind and our planet as well as in our own commitment to humanity.
Sincerely,
Sir Harold Kroto (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
On behalf of my colleagues who, until January 20, 2009 have also signed this letter:
Mairead Corrigan-Maguire (Nobel Peace Prize)
Paul Crutzen (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
Jayantha Dhanapala (former Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament
Affairs at the United Nations)
Dudley Herschbach (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
International Peace Bureau (Noble Peace Prize)
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (Nobel Peace Prize)
Jerome Karle (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
Wolfgang Ketterle (Nobel Prize for Physics)
Wangari Maathai (Nobel Peace Prize)
Erwin Neher (Nobel Prize for Medicine)
John Polanyi (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
Jack Steinberger (Nobel Prize for Physics)
For more information, please contact:
Prof. Dr. Harry Kroto, Member of the Advisory Board of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES)
c/o INES, Glinkastrasse 5, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 30-20 65 38 31; Fax: +49 (0) 30- 21 23 40 57
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., www.inesglobal.co
6) IANSA Women's Network to address connections between HIV/AIDS and small arms
From the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) Women's Network, Bulletin No. 17, January 2009
The 53rd session of the Commission on the Status of Women will be held at the United Nations headquarters in New York from 2-13 March 2009. The priority theme is 'The equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men, including care giving in the context of HIV/AIDS'.
IANSA women will be making the connection between small arms and HIV/AIDS, and how small arms fuel conflicts that contribute to forced migration, infectious disease, and psychological trauma. Sexual violence at gunpoint poses high risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
Sexual violence and exploitation, all too common in conflict and post-conflict settings, contribute to increased rates of HIV transmission. Rape by an infected man directly exposes a woman to the virus, and the abrasions or tearing of vaginal tissues that may result, increase their risk of infection even more.
In some conflicts the planned and purposeful infection of women with HIV becomes a tool of ethnic warfare. Some HIV-infected rape survivors may become pregnant as a result of the assault, bearing children who will eventually become AIDS orphans or succumb to the disease themselves.
There are many important dynamics involved in HIV transmission, including ongoing displacement and poverty which create environments that place women at risk. Internally displaced women face additional dangers as they are often invisible to the international community within the context of violent conflict.
Camps for refugees and the internally displaced have been criticised for not addressing women's needs and concerns in their design and procedures. Failure to account for women's security and health needs can make a camp intended to provide refuge a dangerous and deadly place for women and girls.
"Wars and armed conflicts generate fertile conditions for the spread of HIV. Rape inside or outside refugee camps has doubtless played a part in spreading the virus." UNAIDS
Small arms proliferation may also force governments to focus a majority of their efforts on defense and security measures, leaving them with few resources to cope with the health effects of gun violence, or deal with HIV/AIDS.
Even as conflicts subside, the extremely difficult economic and social conditions that follow often leave many people unemployed and unable to resume their normal community or family lives. In such situations, where AIDS is already a problem, women bear the largest burden of care for family members. Thus, women are not only uniquely at risk of HIV contraction during and after conflicts; they also bear a disproportionate amount of the burden of caring for family members with HIV/AIDS.
HIV/AIDS is not only a health issue: it is a social issue. Girls and women who have been raped and/or captured are often blamed for their fate. Therefore impact of conflict and HIV/AIDS on women and girls' affects their social status and can lead to further violence.
The review theme of the CSW "Equal participation of women and men in decision making processes at all levels" adopted at the 50th session of the CSW will be discussed through an interactive dialogue. IANSA will participate as part of the NGO Working Group (NGO WG) on Women Peace and Security and link the issue of gun violence with women's peace and security, to ensure that women's participation in disarmament processes and the development of small arms policy and practice are clearly included in issues of 1325 implementation, and in advocacy around 1325 National Action Plans.
For more information, see:
Commission on the Status of Women
www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw
HIV/AIDS, Conflict and Displacement
UNICEF and UNHCR, 2006
http://data.unaids.org
IANSA Women's Network
http://www.iansa.org/women/
Rotating President Ambassador Rapacki of Poland opened the CD plenary of 2 February by announcing the results of bilateral consultations held with all delegations. Unfortunately, yet not surprisingly, Member States still have no consensus on a programme of work, the establishment of ad hoc committees, or appointing Special Coordinators. Romanian Ambassador Doru Costea had not hoped for the "miracle" of agreement on a programme of work, but had at least expected States to have offered alternative proposals or concrete suggestions as how to move forward, to show they are still interested in doing so.
The President also announced the Friends of the Presidents, the Ambassadors of Sri Lanka, Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Italy and Japan, tasked with reviewing the agenda and working on the effectiveness of methods of work. The agenda refers to the Decalogue, the 10 item permanent CD agenda that most member states consider sufficiently flexible to cover threats to international peace and security. France, however, expressed "national reservations" about the Decalogue's inclusiveness.
One of the Friends and one of this year's six collaborating Presidents (P6) commented on the CD's methods of work. Sri Lanka's Ambassador Sarala Fernando suggested "wider and more frequent use of informal and open-ended consultations" to substantively deal with issues "pending agreement on establishment of any subsidiary body to commence negotiations". She also reminded that the CD rules of procedure permits inviting the specialized agencies, IAEA or any UN organ to assist advancing the work. Romania asked the CD to consider if "consensus in the CD mean(s) no vote, or vote no?"
The P6 are still working on the details of a timetable, which will be introduced February 9. There are disagreements as to whether the timetable should include issues in addition to the four recognized 'core' issues: Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) and Nuclear Disarmament. In regards to the timeline and issues on it, Algeria asked the chair if delegations are supposed to wait for the Presidents to publish a list of issues to be dealt with and then react on it, or if silence at this stage will be interpreted as consent. Having waited for so long to begin substantive work, we certainly hope the CD does not find an excuse to reject a timetable for discussions. As Ambassador Makarim Wibisono of Indonesia pointed out: if no substantial work takes place soon, the CD might "become just another deliberative forum or, even worse, will soon be considered as no more than a talk show."
Many of today's 14 statements claimed willingness to consider any suggestion in order to break the CD deadlock, with the A5 proposalstill enjoying the strongest support. Ambassador Valery Loshchinin pointed out the difficult but important compromises his country had made for the "evolving" A5 proposal, to which Russia "is prepared not to object", expecting reciprocal steps from other delegations. Russia, like China, came a long way to agree to a PAROS ad hoc committee with a discussion rather than negotiating mandate. India noted its own compromise, coming from supporting CD 1570 to support the A5 which has a weaker nuclear disarmament mandate. Chile said the A5 could be improved upon in order to increase support for it.
Again, many statements identified negotiating an FMCT as the priority issue, and Japan announced its intention to issue a working paper on the subject. Australian Ambassador Michael Smith maintained that although the most effective FMCT would include appropriate verification measures, the priority should be to start negotiations. Japan and Italy supported this position. India, though acknowledging "recent developments", referring to the US rejection of verifiability in an FMCT, still believes the Shannon Mandate should be the basis for beginning negotiations. The Shannon Mandate, which had consensus support before the US pulled back due to objections over verifiability, details the mandate for negotiations of an FMCT.
Russia reiterated that Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) is their main priority. According to Ambassdor Loshchinin this should be dealt with because there are no weapons in outer space yet and "prevention is always easier than prohibition and reduction."
India cited nuclear disarmament as "a core concern of India's foreign policy." Ambassador Jayad Prasad said India, a nuclear weapon state, is "committed to a nuclear-weapon free world."
Russia said it would not object to an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament. It simultaneously said such a committee would be "incomplete and one-sided" without addressing the issue of non-proliferation. Because both issues, together with peaceful uses of atomic energy, are "thoroughly and comprehensively considered within the NPT review process", thought should be given as to how to avoid duplication. Russia also prided itself that "due to joint and concerted efforts of Russia and the United States we have less and less nuclear weapons remaining on Earth." Nevertheless, were it not for Russia and the United States, there would certainly be less nuclear weapons on Earth altogether.
There were two proposals from the floor to consider issues in addition to the four core issues. Based on informal consultations initiated by France and Switzerland on Civil Critical Infrastructure, French Ambassador François Rivasseau introduced a working paper with a draft mandate for the issue. Switzerland then said they would like to create an open-ended group of governmental experts. According to the working paper, this group would compile best practices ensuring safety and security for civil critical infrastructure, and present a report to the CD this year.
Australia distributed a letter requesting the inclusion of Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) in the 2006 work of the CD. Ambassador Smith said UN General Assembly resolution 60/77, adopted by consensus this year, illustrated that an "international consensus on the need to prevent the illicit transfer of MANPADS already exists." Chile and Turkey supported the proposal, Ambassador Türkekul Kurttekin noting that new items still do not exclude previously recognized core issues.
As the CD feels more pressure from the outside world for its lengthy impasse, Sri Lanka asked the Conference to "be mindful of management reforms in New York, which will bring further pressure here and decrease resources" due to the deadlock. Even though rumors circulate about suspending the CD or allocating its work to other venues, Indonesia explained that "the presence of weapons of mass destruction poses a serious threat and a great danger not only to countries that own them, but to all countries, to all human beings. Addressing such a problem certainly does not belong to a handful of countries; instead, a multilateral approach should be the best way to proceed."
Ambassador Costea used the word 'frustration' in order to describe the current atmosphere in the CD, while Indonesia reminded the meeting of Robert Cecil's words written on the wall outside the Council Chamber. "Here is a great work for peace in which we can all participate. The nations must disarm or perish".
Alex Sundberg
Disarmament Intern
Jennifer Nordstrom
Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Rhianna Tyson, Project Associate
The Conference on Disarmament’s 2004 session opened in Geneva on January 20th. Kenya holds the presidency with Ambassador Amina Mohamed presiding. She is the second consecutive female CD president, taking up the arduous task after Japan’s Ambassador Kuniko Inoguchi.
In addition to adopting by consensus its agenda for the 2004 session (document CD/WP.533) and approving the requests from Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece and Jordan to join the work of the Conference as non-members, the Conference also heard a statement from Syria’s Ambassador Mikhail Wehbe on its opening day.
Invoking the recent GA resolution 58 of December 2003, Ambassador Wehbe reiterated the call for a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East. He also reiterated the widely held desire for a binding instrument for Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) for Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS).
It is hoped that if the long-idle CD begins substantive work this year, it will begin negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. One of the longstanding points of contention on an FMCT is the issue of “existing stocks.” Some States, mainly Nuclear Weapon States (NWS), believe that any treaty that works to ban fissile materials should first concentrate on halting their future production. In the words of U.K. Ambassador David Broucher, we must “first shut off the water tap" of production, before we can start negotiating ceilings on stockpiles. In its statement to the CD on January 20, Syria stated the opposing view, held by many NNWS, that a future treaty on fissile materials should also include capping the existing stockpiles of such materials.
On Thursday, January 29, Iran, France, Morocco, Colombia, Slovakia and Algeria took the floor.
Faced with the ongoing inactivity of the CD, many Member States are sending high-level delegates to Geneva, with the intent of raising the political visibility and pressure on that august body. The Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Kamal Kharazzi, delivered Iran’s first statement to the 2004 session.
Mr. Kharazzi outlined the current political climate, defining it as one marked by a “change in the nature of threat perceptions” and a “further militarization of the international arena.” It is an appropriate reminder to the world’s sole body for disarmament negotiations that, as Mr. Kharazzi flatly stated, “Increased militarism does not necessary translate into increased security.” At a time when measures to combat weapons proliferation are increasingly failing to incorporate disarmament measures as an integral part of nonproliferation efforts, Mr. Kharazzi argued that, “Militarization has a decisive role in the existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It threatens international peace and security.”
“Nuclear disarmament,” said the Minister, “should necessarily be the focus of any attempt here. It is an embarrassment that nuclear weapons still exist in defiance to human civilization’s quest.” He claimed that the 13 Steps of the NPT 2000 Review Conference have been "put on ice," and that the “unverifiable, limited” bilateral agreements between NWS are “devoid of effective international guarantees for irreversibility.” While recognizing that his call for “political will” in the CD was just one of many, he urged the “introduction of new ideas” so that we can “comprehend the prerequisites of such a political will.”
Mr. Kharazzi concluded his statement by asserting Iran’s “inalienable right to nuclear technology” as a Party to the NPT. He maintained that Iran is working with the fullest measures of transparency possible, despite the “illegal active campaign to deprive Iran of its right” to nuclear technology. The December signing of the IAEA Additional Protocol is just one more demonstration of Iran’s commitment to “the NPT to protect our supreme interests in a secure environment while ensuring our sustainable development.”
Where Mr. Kharazzi saw a “change in the nature of threat perceptions”, France’s Ambassador François Rivasseau asserted that the present international situation has indeed changed and necessitated new issues and methods of work. Terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are “two asymmetrical menaces which have changed the strategic equation.” Nonetheless, he insisted that new measures taken in the field of disarmament should not be underestimated.
Morocco’s Ambassador Omar Hilale deplored the CD’s infamous stalemate, and asserted that his country would not “resign itself to this fate.” In addition to terrorism and WMD proliferation, Morocco added “the double standard of the perception” of WMD to the list of “new and complex threats.”
Ambassador Clemencia Forero Ucrós of Colombia, made her statement from “the modest perspective of a NNWS,” one that is a member of a continent-wide Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. She noted Colombia’s participation in the Ottawa Process, the Small Arms Plan of Action, as well as the past contributions to the CD made by her predecessor, Ambassador Reyes.
Ambassador Kalman Petocz stressed Slovakia’s prioritization of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty as a starting point for the CD’s work in the new year. He also noted that Colombia’s national instrument of ratification of the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) is in transit to the Secretary-General.
Finally, Ambassador Nassima Baghli of Algeria, as one of the Five Ambassadors whose proposal for an agenda is ever closer to adoption, voiced her pleasure at the “great support” that the A5 proposal has received.
This is the first advisory on the Conference on Disarmament for the 2004 session. All available statements are posted at:http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches04/index04.html.
At the moment, not all statements delivered are available in English. We are trying to obtain English-versions of all of the statements delivered since the CD’s opening on January 20th. In the meanwhile, we apologize for any inconvenience.
All CD Advisories are archived at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/speeches04/advisories.html. All advisories from last year’s sessions, including a summary of statements by topic, are available at:http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/alerts.html.
All press releases from UNOG are available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/press04/pressindex.html.
To read a summary of the A5 proposal see: http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/dc0304e.htm.
For more on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty see:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/FCM/finalreport.html#fissmat
For more on Nuclear Weapon Free Zones see: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/politicalindex.html andhttp://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/FCM/finalreport.html#NWFZ
For more on Negative Security Assurances in the First Committee see:http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/FCM/wk4.htm#NSA
See also the Reaching Critical Will Guide to the Conference on Disarmament, updated in September 2003:http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/cdbook.pdf.
As always, we welcome all comments, questions, concerns, or suggestions.
