International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

Day Nine at the NPT

2009-05-14T11:11:00.000-07:00

Today at the NPT PrepCom brought yet another morning of closed door discussions. The fate of the 2nd draft of chair's recommendations for 2010 hung in the balance. Upon resuming formal discussions in Conference Room 1, the Chair, Ambassador Boniface Guwa Chidyausiku of Zimbabwe, announced that consensus had not been reached on his Draft Recommendations version 2. At present the discussion is about how to proceed. Many delegations are urging the chair to move forward, to try to reach a consensus on a document. How this will turn out is anyone's guess.

Over lunchtime The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy hosted a roundtable discussion with Max Kampelman, Dr Patricia Lewis and Dr Randy Rydell, chaired by Dr Rebecca Johnson. The focus was on the prospects for outlawing the use of nuclear weapons. In her final comments, Dr Patricia Lewis said "It is ideas that start in our minds that make things happen. Nuclear weapons are man-made, and we can get rid of them." This gathering coincides with the launch of Dr Rebecca Johnson's new book - Unfinished Business: The Negotiation of the CTBT and the End of Nuclear Testing. The entire document is now available online via the UNIDIR site. Just click on the link above and you too can read her work!

Yours from an expectant NPT PrepCom

Ruth Mitchell

Day Eight at the NPT - A new day and a new draft set of recommendations

2009-05-14T10:46:00.000-07:00

My apologies for the delay in blogging the events to Day 8 at the NPT. After an afternoon and a morning of no general discussions in the main conference room, we finally heard back from the delegates regarding the discussions held behind closed doors. After a working paper was tabled by Belgium, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Poland and Turkey the meeting was once again adjourned so that a revised version of the Chair's recommendations could be drafted. These were handed down at about 6pm, allowing delegates and NGO participants alike to spend their evening dissecting the new document. Notably for those of us from ICAN and IPPNW, the reference to a nuclear weapons convention was removed. For in-depth analysis of the difference between the first and second documents from the chair, see the Reaching Critical Will article by Ray Acheson.

During the lunchtime break, one of the NGO events was a session on the Medical and Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War. This was put on by IPPNW's US affiliate Physicians for Social Responsibility. I had the opportunity to chair this session and we began with introductory historical remarks by longtime medical activist and author Dr Vic Sidel. We then witnessed a dramatic presentation modeling the impact of both a regional nuclear conflict in South Asia, as well as a full blown war between the US and Russia. Steven Starr and Dr Ira Helfand worked together to present the data and the likely health impact of nuclear war. Much of the data including the brilliant images use are available on www.nucleardarkness.org, a website Steven has been constructing. In the near future it is hoped that this site will be available in a variety of languages.

Yours from the UN

Ruth Mitchell

Day Seven at the NPT

2009-05-12T08:04:00.000-07:00

After this morning's government briefing by the Canadian Ambassador, Marius Grinius, general discussions began on the Chair's draft recommendations for the 2010 RevCon. A number of countries raised points, some of them procedural and others more substantive. Many countries like Australia and Canada raised concerns about specific points but this was balanced with a recognition of the need for progress. Other countries had more significant concerns, such as the US who have an impending nuclear posture review and for whom it seems that the level of detail in the draft recommendations is premature. From about 12 noon today

The lunchtime NGO session was on the Operational Status of Nuclear Weapon Systems, and the panel included Ambassadors from Chile, who chaired, Switzerland, and New Zealand. Many excellent points were raised, including the observation that Candidate Obama spoke of de-alerting, but President Obama has yet to do so. Up to date technical details and analysis were provided by John Hallam of People for Nuclear Disarmament, Steven Starr of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Geoffrey Forden, from MIT. Dr Forden's entire presentation has been made available online and is entitled Dangers Inherent to Nuclear Arsenals

Finally, today saw the beginning of simulated negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. This excercise, run by the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation and the Technical University of Darmstadt, involves 30 students who take the roles of members of an enlarged Security Council, and it is very interesting to observe how it is proceeding. ICAN's very own Dimity Hawkins chaired this morning's session and the Chilean Ambassador is chairing this afternoon.

Over the last few days the Swedish IPPNW (SLMK) delegates have been leaving, but reinforcements have arrived in the form of the Norwegians. And we look forward to more of our US based members from Physicians for Social Responsibility arriving over in the next day or two.

Yours from the feverish simulated negotiations of a nuclear weapons convention

Ruth Mitchell

Day Six at the NPT - Clusters all done

2009-05-12T06:32:00.000-07:00

Day Six, the second week of the NPT PrepCom, and the delegates are making progress. Yesterday brought the end of discussion on Cluster Three, which is about peaceful uses of nuclear energy. There was also discussion around "other provisions of the Treaty, including Article X". This is about provisions for withdrawing from the NPT. Some delegations have called for measures making withdrawal from the Treaty more difficult, in order to strengthen the NPT. Progress through the speaker's list was so brisk that the meeting was adjourned more than 1 1/2 hours early in the afternoon session.

On the NGO calendar, an event was organised by Soka Gakkai International, and co-sponsored by ICAN, which brought together some leading minds in the area of "Nuclear Abolition and Human Security". We heard from Kazuo Tase, Head of the Human Security Unit at the UN, Dr Patricia Lewis, Deputy Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, and Dr Kathleen Sullivan, Education Consultant to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. This stimulating session explored the links between nuclear abolition and human security. Human security is all about putting people first, which makes us more pragmatic and focuses our thinking on people-protection measures, as Patricia Lewis pointed out. We explored the idea of empowerment, and agreed that empowerment comes through participation and through listening as well as speaking and acting. Kathleen Sullivan led us through an exercise of speaking and listening which took us from thinking to feeling to action. During the general discussion I had a chance to share the work of the Nuclear Weapons Inheritance Project, which I believe uses a human security framework to work for nuclear abolition.

Today will bring general discussion around the chair's recommendations for the RevCon next year, and I will update you as to the direction these discussions take.

Yours in Peace

Ruth Mitchell

Day Five at the NPT - one week down, one week to go!

2009-05-08T12:31:00.000-07:00

Well folks, the weekend is nearly here. Our morning NGO caucus meeting was a little longer this morning and included a strategy session. We set ourselves the task of making a short list of demands to focus on in the year before the Review Conference. We identified an overarching human security theme which unites all our demands. I will post these demands once we've had a chance to finesse the wording and discuss them further. This work will be continued in tomorrow's Abolition 2000 Annual General Meeting.

In the official debate, today's big news today has been the release by the Chair of the PrepCom, Ambassador Chidyausiku of Zimbabwe, of his draft recommendations to the 2010 Review Conference. None of us have had a chance to digest these entirely but then neither have the official delegates.

Two weeks is a long time, and while your faithful blogger will be here for the duration, some people have had to leave to get back to their vital work elsewhere. IPPNW's Canadian affiliate, Physicians for Global Survival, have been well represented in the last few days by both the president, Michael Dworkin, and the executive director, Kim Kroeber, but both are now returning home, to host a wonderful PGS/ICAN event next Tuesday. If you are in the Ottawa area, RSVP quickly!

Listening to the debate in Conference Room 1 the temptation to stand up and say something is at times overwhelming. Don't worry, I haven't misbehaved yet. But what I'd really like to say is something like the words of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, which brings focus to any debate about the things that divide us. In 1955, their words to us were "We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."

Yours from New York

Ruth Mitchell

Day Four at the NPT - Getting down to the nitty gritty

2009-05-07T08:55:00.000-07:00

Day Four and temperature is rising. In Conference Room E, the room at the end of the building given to the NGOs for our many meetings, it is positively stifling. We can either open the doors and have some small amount of air to breathe, or we can close the doors and actually hear each other. And under these conditions we are trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons. There are 77 NGOs who are accredited for this PrepCom, and there are many more individual members of civil society. This morning our very own Dimity Hawkins of ICAN Australia and John Loretz of the IPPNW Central Office co-chaired a session on the implementation of the Nuclear Weapons Convention which called on both the experience of Jayanatha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash, and Randy Rydell, of the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs. We also heard the perspective from parliamentarians working to promote disarmament.

In Conference Room 1, the lunchtime session brought us the words of Michael Douglas, the actor, who told us this is "Not a moment for hesitation, cynicism or doubt, it is a time to be bold." He joined with voices from Disarmament Affairs, past and present, asking us to seize on the moment of extraordinary hope presented by statements by Ban Ki Moon as well as both Russian and US Presidents.

The official "debate" has now shifted to Cluster 1 discussions. Or rather, Cluster 1 read statements. There were exciting moments at the end of yesterday however, with Syria and Canada disagreeing about the right to nuclear energy. A series of rights-of-reply culminated with Canada emphasising that rights come with obligations.

Over the last 2 days there have been some meetings with official delegations. The group from SLMK, the Swedish affiliate of IPPNW, met last night with the Swedish delegation, and today I had the opportunity to join with the president and the executive director of Physicians for Global Survival, the Canadian affiliate of IPPNW, as well as three other dynamic and wonderful Canadians, in meeting with the Canadian delegation. This was an excellent meeting and reaffirmed the need for ongoing dialogue between members of civil society and the diplomats and civil servants who work on these issues on behalf of our governments. Much of what takes place in these meetings is off the record, as is the content of our morning briefings from members of government, such as this morning's briefing with the UK Ambassador. It means I can't tell you all that was said and not said, but I think it represents the real work of NGOs at these gatherings - the nitty gritty.

Tonight New York will truly take off with a party to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Reaching Critical Will, and the 94th birthday of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

On that festive thought I leave you with big hopes for Peace

Ruth Mitchell

Day Three at the NPT - supermodels, rockstars, and an agenda for 2010

2009-05-06T12:44:00.000-07:00

Today at the United Nations in New York we heard compelling and sensible words calling for nuclear abolition. From Christie Brinkley, the supermodel. It was a great speech grounded in her reality of being a mother of three children, calling for those in positions of power to waste no time in ridding the world of nuclear weapons. In the same session, Henrik Salander, the new chair of the Middle Powers Initiative, and a former rock star, spoke about the role of Article IV forums in providing space for off the record policy debate, and emphasising the central role of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. He said that what had begun as a utopian dream is becoming a pragmatic reality, and that the document jump starts analysis and focuses our thinking.

Many of us from the NGO community spent the morning in a very energising discussion about the work of ICAN around the world. We heard from those working on abolition in France, Japan, UK, US, Italy, Germany, and Australia. The challenges of doing abolition work in different environments make our common commitment and our mutual cooperation all the more vital, and I think that everyone left with new ideas and a fresh sense of possibility.

The afternoon saw many parallel sessions, but I chose to attend one organised by IALANA with the participation of Dr Stefan Kordasch from the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was asked to comment on Germany's position on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. He stated that Germany does not think the world is ready for a NWC, prefering a step by step approach. It seems that we need to get a lot closer to zero before Germany will get involved in an NWC approach, although how we will get closer to zero without a convention remains to be seen.

Finally, the big news for today from the NPT: We have a draft agenda for the 2010 NPT Review Conference. It's right here if you'd like to have a look: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom09/2010Agenda.pdf

If it looks really familiar to you, that is because it is the same agenda as that was used in 2000 with one very minor non-substantive update. Other decisions taken in the official session today were the date of the Review Conference, which will be from 3-28 May 2010, and the Chair, who will be the ambassador from the Philippines. Next year will be a big year in the NPT cycle, and so if you can be in New York in May, you should try to get here.

With great hopes for zero

from New York City

Ruth Mitchell

Day Two at the NPT - busy day for the ICAN crew

2009-05-06T05:40:00.000-07:00

Day Two at the NPT was busy. The day began with the first Abolition 2000 caucus meeting. These meetings, held every morning, are an opportunity for members of the NGO delegations to meet together and to talk about the events coming up. It also provides a chance to review the day that has just passed. Meeting members of other NGOs, many of which I have been aware of for a long time, is really encouraging. Those of us in IPPNW from MAPW and other affiliates who work on ICAN often feel a bit alone in our calls for nuclear abolition, but it is great to see the diversity of organisations and people who are pulling in the same direction.

The morning "general debate" included a number of indirect references to a nuclear weapons convention, including one from the representative from El Salvador, which prompted me to chase after her after she left the conference room and give her a copy of our model nuclear weapons convention. Perhaps the highlight of the morning's meeting was the statement of support read by the US delegate from President Barack Obama. This statement can be found at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom09/statements/5May_US.pdf

At lunchtime a session was held by the International Commission on Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament (ICNND), which is the also known as the Rudd Commission. Co-chairs Gareth Evans of Australia and Yoriko Kawaguchi of Japan (both former foreign ministers) gave presentations on the work of the commission, including the timeline of their various meetings.

They explained that they plan to deliver their final report either at the end of this year or early next year. During question time they were pressed to elaborate on their response to the model Nuclear Weapons Convention and Gareth Evans reaffirmed his previous statements that he feels it is a comprehensive and impressive document. However, he has concerns about how to use it most pragmatically. A full report by Dimity Hawkins is on page 6 of todays News in Review, the link is here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/NIR2009/No3.pdf

In the afternoon, the official session of the NPT PrepCom was dedicated to presentations of the NGOs. It was my honour to deliver the consensus statement on the Nuclear Weapons Convention on behalf of the drafting group. The document is available, along with all the other NGO presentations at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom09/ngostatements.html

The statement on the Nuclear Weapons Convention responds to some of the most common concerns and questions about the suitability of an NWC approach, including the question of undermining the NPT.

For more information about the NPT PrepCom you can look at www.npt-tv.net for interviews with diplomats and NGOs and daily reports on the state of the PrepCom. There is also another blog at reachingcriticalwill.blogspot.com which extends beyond the timeframe of the NPT.

Today we have the session on ICAN around the world, sharing ideas and campaign strategies for nuclear abolition. This will be followed by a session tomorrow on the Nuclear Weapons Convention and the NPT, and I will keep you updated.

With best wishes for peace and abolition from New York

Ruth Mitchell

Day One at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom

2009-05-05T07:12:00.000-07:00

Greetings from New York! I am here at the United Nations, sitting in Conference Room 1, listening to the general debate at the beginning of the 3rd session of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee. This is my first PrepCom and I'll be trying to update you on most days about what it is like to be at the meeting.

Yesterday was Day One, and it started out with a very long queue. Dimity Hawkins of ICAN Australia, John Loretz, Program Director at IPPNW, and I waited for about two hours to get our shiny blue United Nations ID badges. Then we rushed to the main conference room to hear the speeches beginning. We heard a number of speeches, including those of the Russian Federation, Malaysia, Canada and Australia. The full speeches have been uploaded at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom09/statements.html by the wonderful people at the Reaching Critical Will. Those of us from down under were listening with particular interest to the statement by the Australian delegation, which mentioned the work of NGOs and the need to get to zero nuclear weapons, but did not explicitly call for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

During NPT meetings like this one, non-governmental organisations have sessions which run in parallel to the official delegates proceedings. Yesterday an excellent session was hosted by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research on their recent study "Carbon-Free and Nuclear Free: a Roadmap for US Energy Policy". In their presentation Dr Arjun Makhijani and Jennifer Nordstrom outlined the arguments for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources and the arguments against use of nuclear power. The book outlining these arguments is available for free download at www.ieer.org.

Finally, the day concluded with the US premier of the movie "The Strangest Dream". This film, by the National Film Board of Canada, is the story of Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Watching this new film at the United Nations in the company of many who knew Joseph Rotblat was a very moving experience. More information about the film can be found at www3.nfb.ca/webextension/strangest-dream/.

Today we hear from the United States in the general debate, have a session on the International Commission on Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation, established last year by Kevin Rudd, and in the afternoon during the NGO presentations I will read the statement on the Nuclear Weapons Convention. Stay tuned for more updates from New York, and let me know if you have questions about what's going on here which I can address in this blog.

Yours for Peace

Ruth Mitchell

Happy Transparent Holidays from the UK Ministry of Defence

2008-12-23T15:04:00.000-08:00

ICAN-UK reports that the UK government has quietly - almost secretly - sold its last remaining shares in the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) to the US company Jacobs Engineering Group. This now means that Britain no longer has any stake in the production of its Trident nuclear warheads and that all production, design, and decommissioning of nuclear weapons in the UK is privately owned, with US companies having a majority stake.

The issue here is not so much selling UK nuclear security to the US - that was done long ago when London became Washington's attack dog - but once again violating the NPT by sharing nuclear technology.

The government's response is that it's "the UK government, not AWE, that sets the UK's nuclear policy." There's still the matter of the NPT.

And in a related issue, the UK Ministry of Defence has chosen the holiday season to announce plans to build an AWE facility at Burghfield, Reading, Berkshire. The local council has generously granted anyone opposed the opportunity to make their voices known by January 6th. They may review documents, plans etc. at West Berkshire Council offices 6 days AFTER the announcement, released on Friday December 19th to ensure the time loss of the weekend before people react.

So, that means as of December 25th, a holiday, folks can gather pertinent information to oppose the plan. Of course, December 26th is also a holiday. And December 27th and 28th are a weekend. So, everyone will have to rush in on December 29th & 30th before things shut down for the New Year and no doubt reopen again on Monday January 5th - one day before the deadline.

They're so transparent in their lack of transparency.

A nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere?

2008-05-06T06:00:00.000-07:00

We’ve decided to set up a small working group of NGO representatives interested in working to secure the entry into force of the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. We met yesterday with representatives from African states to discuss way to encourage countries which haven’t yet done so to ratify. Our goal is to secure three more ratifications, and therefore entry into force, in time for the next summit of the African Union, which will take place in January. It has been a long time since there were any victories of this kind, so it would provide much-needed momentum for the anti-nuclear movement. The entire southern hemisphere would be a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

Returning to the International Court of Justice

2008-05-04T18:00:00.000-07:00

There have been discussions here in Geneva about the possibility of returning to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the meaning of “good faith” in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Parties are required to enter into good faith negotiations for disarmament, and this obligation might even extend to the countries outside the treaty – India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. This question must be clarified. Even if the court were unwilling to say that the obligation required countries to immediately commence negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention, it would at least say that the nuclear weapons states should be doing much more than they are currently doing.

Simulated debate for nuclear weapons convention

2008-05-02T18:00:00.000-07:00

The Ban All Nukes Generation organised a mock debate for a nuclear weapons convention. About 50 students were involved. It was a really interesting session, and the various states represented in the discussions did manage to agree on quite a few things, which was reassuring. Tilman Ruff, who chairs the Australian section of ICAN, was in charge of the session. There have been discussions about holding similar mock debates around the world. Most of the diplomats at the Non-Proliferation Treaty meeting were aware that this event was taking place.

Nuclear-weapon-free, my cup of tea

2008-05-01T18:00:00.000-07:00

ICAN activists from Norway, Germany, Australia and Sweden held an event called “Nuclear-Weapon-Free – My Cup of Tea” today in Geneva. As well as serving tea and buscuits, we distributed information to passersby, including postcards promoting the formation of a European nuclear-weapon-free zone. We had big banners and people wearing white jumpsuits and juggling yellow balls with radiation symbols.

Several people from ICAN attended a workshop with Dr Kathleen Sullivan on disarmament education. It was a really useful exercise. She asked us to think about how we feel about nuclear weapons and how we can work together for disarmament.

Australia acknowledges need for an NWC

2008-04-30T20:00:00.000-07:00

Australia today delivered a statement on nuclear disarmament to the Non-Proliferation Treaty meeting in Geneva. It was much different from statements made in previous years. It even included a reference to the need for a nuclear weapons convention (NWC) for the first time ever. This is something which disarmament experts have described as quite significant. The reference is a cautious one, but using those words in this forum is rare. The only other countries so far to have mentioned an NWC at the meeting have been Costa Rica, Malaysia and Iran.

The statement read: “Australia under a new Government is fully committed to realizing a world free from nuclear weapons … A world free of nuclear weapons will require carefully calibrated steps that buttress international peace and security. Every state, whether holding nuclear weapons or not, must play a part in realizing that world. And at an appropriate time, the international community will likely need to consider complementary legal frameworks, including a possible nuclear weapons convention, for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons.”

Australia welcomed reductions made by the nuclear weapon states in the size of their arsenals but said that “the international community, Australia included, remains hungry for further, irreversible reductions and greater transparency from states holding nuclear weapons. Concurrent with their warhead reductions, nuclear weapon states need to confirm a reduced role for their nuclear weapons in national security policies.”

It concluded with these words: “We are making progress towards realising the vision of a world free from nuclear weapons, albeit neither as fast nor as consistently as we would wish. Yet one thing is for certain – that without a renewed global commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation … the vision will remain little more than that. Australia is ready to join such a renewed commitment.”

The momentum of ICAN grows internationally

2008-04-30T18:00:00.000-07:00

It has been little over a year since ICAN was launched, and much progress has been made since then. Active national campaigns have emerged in many countries, mainly European, and today a small number of us met in Geneva to share our ideas and enthusiasm for ICAN, in hopes of building on the momentum already generated.

Tilman Ruff, from Australia, commenced discussions by describing his vision for the campaign as a vehicle that would allow different groups with their own specific agendas to work together for the ultimate goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world. That goal, he argued, is best achieved through a nuclear weapons convention (NWC).

I provided an update of the Australian campaign, drawing particular attention to the new Government’s pre-election commitment to “lead the international agenda for a nuclear weapons convention”, and I spoke of the materials we have produced – a foldout, mini-magazine, DVD and education booklet – which have been designed so that they can be distributed internationally.

Various people from the United Kingdom informed the group that an ICAN working group had been set up there. Its focus is on generating parliamentary support for an NWC and opposition to the renewal of Trident. ICAN in the UK has produced a four-page summary of the model NWC and intends to produce an even briefer summary for use by the general public.

ICAN has begun to take greater prominence in France, where meetings were held in 20 cities or towns to discuss the model NWC. The Mouvement de la Paix organized a meeting with parliamentarians to explain and promote the model NWC, and under the ICAN banner it intends to launch a postcard campaign urging French President Nicolas Sarkozy to support an NWC.

A very strong national campaign was launched in Norway with a petition containing the faces of 100 prominent people – artists, former political leaders, musicians and authors – who support an NWC. ICAN in Norway persuaded the Foreign Ministry to translate the model NWC into Norwegian and to host an international conference on a vision for a nuclear-weapon-free world. This conference was attended by several nuclear-armed states.

ICAN in Sweden has begun to translate some of the English campaign materials into Swedish, and medical student activists have held Target X demonstrations and “Nuclear-Weapon-Free – My Cup of Tea” events to generate support for an NWC.

A representative from the Netherlands expressed hope that ICAN would become central to the campaign for nuclear disarmament in her country, and spoke of an effort to persuade former Dutch leaders to sign on to a statement similar to the one made in the Wall Street Journal by former US leaders George Schultz, Henry Kissinger and others.

Alyn Ware, who was involved in drafting the model NWC, provided some advice for promoting the draft treaty to parliamentarians and diplomats. He said that the focus should not simply be on those who oppose it or are unsure about it, but efforts must also be made to ensure that those who support it are doing so actively. He argued that the NWC is far from being a “pie in the sky” idea, especially given it now has support from China, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

For those who argue that an NWC is premature, or that a step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament is to be preferred, we should point out that the General Assembly resolution relating to the NWC merely calls for “negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention”. Therefore, there is no good reason for states to oppose it. He said that the NWC would not weaken the Non-Proliferation Treaty – it would rather be a way of implementing Article VI.

When will states heed civil society's call?

2008-04-29T19:00:00.000-07:00

One of the most positive things about the current Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meeting, which is being held in Geneva for the next two weeks, has been that almost all non-government organisations (NGOs) present have focused on the need for a nuclear weapons convention (NWC). It is central to everything that’s happening here. The national delegations will have to take heed to our call sooner or later!

A group of 50 German students is here to take part in simulated negotiations for an NWC. During the week, they will meet with ambassadors from the nuclear weapon states to ask questions about their stance on the NWC. Sadly, this might be more of an educational experience for the delegates than for the students, who seem to know a great deal about the Model NWC.

Patricia Lewis, the director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, spoke to the students on Sunday about ways to advance the idea. She raised the possibility of a group of experts set up by the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to look into the feasibility of an NWC.

We could put pressure on a government or several governments to set up an Ottawa- or Oslo-style process for an NWC – that is, a process which occurs outside the existing disarmament machinery, she suggested. She expected that one or more of the nuclear-armed states would be interested in participating in such a process from the outset, if only to ‘keep an eye on things’

Another option would be for the NPT to set up a committee to look specifically at the NWC in the lead up to the 2010 Review Conference, but a major problem with this approach is that it would exclude India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea unless they acceded to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states. The Conference on Disarmament could also promote an NWC – although she concluded that this approach would be less likely than other approaches to gain traction.

Towards a nuclear weapons convention

2008-04-29T18:00:00.000-07:00

Support for a nuclear weapons convention (NWC) has grown over the last year, with more governments, civil society groups and prominent individuals arguing that it is feasible, necessary and urgent. Some who had previously seen an NWC as premature now assert that the time has come to begin negotiating one.

The Chairman’s factual summary of the 2007 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) preparatory meeting acknowledged that during the meeting several countries had called for the development of an NWC and the formation of a subsidiary body dealing with nuclear disarmament at the 2010 review conference.

Costa Rica submitted a revised version of the Model NWC which had originally been drafted in 1997 by a consortium of disarmament experts. The revised version took into account relevant international developments over the last decade. Costa Rica also submitted the document to the UN General Assembly during last year’s session.

Each year, the General Assembly adopts a resolution titled “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”, which calls on all states “immediately to [commence] multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention”.

Last year, 127 nations voted in favour of the resolution, compared with 125 nations in 2006. Two countries changed their vote: Bulgaria from “no” to “yes” and Georgia from “abstain” to “no”. However, the Bulgarian delegation subsequently advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote against the resolution. Therefore, the change in number is not significant.

However, it is worth noting that ten nations did not have a vote recorded. If they had participated in the vote and voted as they did in previous years, then the result would have been 134 in favour, 29 against and 28 abstentions (as opposed to 127 in favour, 27 against and 27 abstentions).

Among the countries voting in favour of the resolution were four nuclear-armed nations: China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and Israel voted against the resolution, as did all European countries which host US nuclear weapons on their soil as part of the NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement.

Australia abstained from voting, even though the new Government had made a pre-election commitment to lead the global push for an NWC. Presumably this was because the Government had not yet had sufficient time to consider the resolution (or any others) since being sworn in. It is expected that Australia will vote in favour of the NWC resolution at this year’s General Assembly session, and it might also persuade other previously sceptical nations to do the same.

Last September Australia’s shadow foreign minister, Robert McClelland, argued that “ultimately the question to be asked is not why there should be a nuclear weapons convention but why the international community has not yet agreed to start negotiating one”. He later informed the Australian Press Club that a Labor Government would be “committed to driving the international agenda for a nuclear weapons convention”.

However, neither the Australian Foreign Minister nor the Prime Minister has yet confirmed that the Government stands by its pre-election commitment. Prime Minister Rudd has merely declared an intention to engage in “activist middle power diplomacy”, including on nuclear weapons issues. As mentioned in my previous post, Australia didn't mention an NWC in its opening statement to the present NPT preparatory meeting being held in Geneva.

Representatives of the ICAN in Australia have suggested to the Government that it might consider establishing an advisory committee within the Foreign Ministry to make recommendations on the most effective way to advance an NWC. The committee would decide, for example, whether an NWC should be promoted through the Seven Nation Initiative and whether it would be feasible to convene a summit of world leaders before the 2010 NPT RevCom to discuss the possibility of negotiating such a treaty.

Australia is not the only country in which ICAN has generated enthusiasm for an NWC. Last year, the campaign was launched nationally in Canada, Denmark, France, India, Malaysia, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, and a growing number of individuals in those countries have added their voice to the call. The campaign has managed to foster close ties with parliamentarians and other key decision makers in several countries.

ICAN and an NWC were central to this year’s World Congress of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which took place in New Delhi and attracted more delegates than any previous conference, including a large contingent of medical students.

The campaign has printed and distributed hundreds of thousands of brochures, postcards and booklets aimed at gaining support for a nuclear-weapon-free world through an NWC, and in partnership with three international organizations it has circulated thousands of copies of the updated Model NWC.

ICAN has received endorsements from high-profile disarmament experts, including Dr Hans Blix and Gareth Evans, who agree that the time for an NWC is now. Professor Jody Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her involvement in the campaign to ban landmines, has also backed the campaign. At last year’s NPT PrepCom, she remarked: “We are told by some governments that a nuclear weapons convention is premature and unlikely. Don’t believe it. We were told the same thing about a mine ban treaty.”

An NWC would help to overcome the current stalemate in negotiations for disarmament. It would encourage the involvement of the four nuclear-armed nations which currently sit outside the NPT: Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. This year’s preparatory meeting should be used as a forum for generating support for an NWC and deciding how best to transform the Model NWC, or something like it, into law. Yesterday we heard China speak of the need for an NWC and today we heard Costa Rica and Malaysia do the same. We hope that over the coming two weeks many nations join them in their call.

Australia fails to affirm commitment to nuclear disarmament treaty

2008-04-28T18:00:00.000-07:00

We were surprised and disappointed today at Australia’s failure to affirm its support for a nuclear weapons convention – a treaty to ban nuclear weapons and ensure their elimination – at an important meeting of states parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In a statement to the meeting this morning, Australia’s disarmament ambassador Caroline Miller announced that the Rudd Government is committed to playing “a new, more active role in multilateral affairs” with respect to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, but she didn't confirm whether it stands by its pre-election promise to “lead the international agenda for a nuclear weapons convention”.

This commitment was one of the most significant that Labor made on international policy, so it should have received a mention in Australia’s opening statement. We mustn’t wait another year – or longer – before getting fully behind this important initiative. A nuclear weapons convention is our best hope of moving beyond the current stalemate in disarmament negotiations. It isn’t acceptable for any state to adopt a business-as-usual approach at these kinds of forums. The consequences of doing so are too grave.

Australia still has the opportunity to use this meeting as a forum for promoting, publicly as well as behind closed doors, the commencement of negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention. And it has a popular mandate to do so. China this morning expressed strong support for a nuclear weapons convention, and we hope that several other nations will do the same over the next two weeks.

Dismantling bombs to make room for new ones

2008-03-25T03:36:00.000-07:00

French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced earlier this week that his country will dismantle some of its airborne nuclear weapons. This is good news, right? Well, yes … but not entirely.

He made the announcement at the inauguration of a new nuclear-armed submarine, appropriately named The Terrible, and stressed that France’s “nuclear deterrent” remains its “life-insurance policy”.

Disappointingly, this scenario has become quite typical. The five original nuclear weapon states – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China – are all bound by Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to disarm.

But the trend has been to get rid of obsolete weapons while building new ones – and then they claim that they’re fulfilling their disarmament obligations. This kind of proliferation, known as vertical proliferation, should be universally condemned. But very few countries are bold enough to criticise.

On a more positive and personal note, I have been selected to attend the Australian Prime Minister’s 2020 Youth Summit in Canberra. It will be a great chance to encourage the new Government to lead the international charge for nuclear weapons abolition and to get other young people enthusiastic about the cause.

Youth have been at the heart of efforts to end extreme poverty and to tackle climate change; we must now also put our energies into the equally important task of banning the Bomb. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Palm Sunday protesters demand disarmament

2008-03-17T18:00:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Palm Sunday, the traditional day of protest against war and injustice. It coincided roughly with the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and large peace rallies took place across Australia. I was invited to address the crowd in Melbourne, and this post is a summary of what I said.

I don’t usually quote Arnold Schwarzenegger – because we have quite different political views – but last year he said something about nuclear weapons that made remarkable sense. He said: “A nuclear disaster will not hit at the speed of a glacier melting. It will hit with a blast. It will not hit with the speed of the atmosphere warming but of a city burning. Clearly, the attention focused on nuclear weapons should be as prominent as that of global climate change.”

I worry that large numbers of conscientious people across the world have become complacent about the second inconvenient truth of our time. There are still some 26,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, several thousand of which are kept on hair-trigger alert – able to be used within minutes of a command.

The situation really is frightening. The international Doomsday Clock sits at just five minutes to midnight, which means that the threat of nuclear annihilation today is as high as it was through most of the Cold War years.

I believe that Australia, as a middle power, can and must drive an international push for a treaty the outlaw – and ultimately eliminate – the worst weapons of terror. I’m pleased that one of the Labor Party’s pre-election promises was to do just that. Robert McClelland, who is our Attorney-General now and who was Shadow Foreign Minister at the time, said that ultimately the question to be asked is not why there should be a ban but why the international community has not yet agreed to start negotiating one.

This is good news, no doubt. But the Australian Government must ask itself these hard questions: What credibility does it have promoting the abolition of nuclear weapons so long as continues to export uranium to nuclear-armed countries or to countries which on-sell it to nuclear-armed countries? And what credibility does it have promoting the abolition of nuclear weapons so long as it continues to nestle cosily under the United States nuclear umbrella? Further, by lending bases, ports and infrastructure for the US nuclear war-fighting apparatus, we also lend weight and credence to the idea that nuclear weapons bring security.

Another question I would like our Labor parliamentarians to consider is: What role might Pine Gap play in a possible US-led nuclear attack against, say, Iran or North Korea? And how would that sit with their consciences? It seems clear to me that, if we are to be credible in advancing a nuclear-weapon-free world, we must adopt a nuclear-weapon-free defence posture. It’s what New Zealand did in the 1980s; it’s what we must do now.

In addition to this, we need to stop making excuses for the United States’ failure to disarm. Time and again, we praise our mightiest ally for dismantling a small number of its obsolete Cold War nukes while failing to criticise it for the nuclear weapons modernisation it’s involved in.

Similarly, we failed to criticise the United Kingdom last year when, remarkably, its Parliament gave the go-ahead to re-build the nation’s fleet of nuclear-armed Trident submarines – with a whopping price tag of more than £50 billion.

In some respects, we’re contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons through our silence. But, significantly, we are also contributing through our actions. Selling uranium to nuclear-armed countries is irresponsible. The Government assures us that the sales are subject to stringent and entirely effective safeguards. This is not true. Last year, the Medical Association for Prevention of War released a damning report, Illusion of Protection, in which it pointed out the fundamental flaws in domestic and international safeguards systems.

Safeguards are little more than a veil to make unquestioning citizens feel comfortable about the dodgy deals being made by governments on their behalf. And even if safeguards were 100 per cent effective – which they’re not and never will be – we’re still freeing up a country’s domestic reserves of uranium for nuclear bomb-making. That’s a problem which no amount of safeguarding can remedy.

Thankfully, the new Australian Government has ruled out the possibility of exporting uranium to India – an idea that former Prime Minister John Howard had been toying with, even though India isn’t a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the Rudd Government intends to continue selling uranium to other nuclear-armed states, including China.

And it might also proceed with a deal to export uranium to Russia, which has the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and the world’s worst nuclear safety record. You can have your say on this by making a submission to the Senate inquiry into the matter.

Despite these comments, I am pleased at the commitments the new government has made. It seems to be taking a much more active approach towards nuclear disarmament than the previous government. Our task, as activists, is to make sure that it lives up to its various commitments – and the most important of them, in my view, is the undertaking to lead the global push for a nuclear weapons ban.

People often say to me that it’s naive to think we will ever get rid of nuclear weapons. I say to them: what’s naive is to think that nuclear weapons can be retained, in perpetuity, and not used.