Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • UN Committee Passes Nuclear Disarmament Resolution

    The United Nations First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), by a vote of 100 in favour, 25 against and 23 abstentions, today adopted resolution A/C.1/53/L.45, entitled “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.”

    The resolution welcomes the conclusion of the ICJ “that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects” and calls for “all states to immediately fulfill that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 1999 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention…”

    A separate vote on operative paragraph paragraph one, which welcomes the ICJ’s conclusion, was supported by 133 states, with 5 opposing and 5 abstaining.

    Among the nuclear weapons states, China, India and Pakistan supported the resolution, while the others opposed. The UK did however abstain on operative paragraph 1.

    Explanations of vote were given by Luxembourg (on behalf of themselves, Netherlands and Belgium), Chile, the UK, USA, Japan, Aotearoa-New Zealand, South Korea and Germany.

    Germany’s statement explaining its opposition, emphasised that it could only move forward on nuclear disarmament initiatives in cooperation with its NATO partners. There was thus no indication that the new government, a Green Social Democrat coalition, would implement its agreed policy on disarmament which supports unilateral disarmament initiatives including a reduction of alert status and renunciation of the first-use policy. Unlike Germany, the NATO states of Norway, Denmark and Iceland abstained.

    Statements of Japan, USA, UK, and Luxembourg were similar to those they made when the resolution was before the United Nations last year.

    Aotearoa-New Zealand noted that while they supported the call for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, and that a nuclear weapons convention could be the instrument to complete the task, they also believed that the final goal may be a different agreement or framework of agreements. Thus resolution L.48 (Towards a nuclear-weapon- free world: the need for a new agenda) more accurately reflected their position.

    Chile expressed shock that countries could vote against operative paragraph 1 which was an expression of international law. They reminded the assembly of the elements of international law which led to the unanimous conclusion regarding the disarmament obligation. They noted the other unanimous conclusions of the ICJ regarding the application of international humanitarian law to any threat or use of nuclear weapons, and the lack of any specific authorization for any threat or use of nuclear weapons in international law. Finally, Chile noted that any possession of nuclear weapons in a region of conflict would constitute a threat of their use and thus be in violation of international law.

    The resolution will be forwarded to the plenary of the General Assembly for a final vote in early December.

  • Resolution 1205 (1998)

    Adopted by the Security Council at its 3939th meeting.

    The Security Council,

    Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions on the situation in Iraq, in particular its resolution 1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998 and 1194 (1998) of 9 September 1998,

    Noting with alarm the decision of Iraq on 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission, and its continued restrictions on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),

    Noting the letters from the Deputy Executive Chairman of the Special Commission of 31 October 1998 (S/1998/1023) and from the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission of 2 November 1998 (S/1998/1032) to the President of the Security Council, which reported to the Council the decision by Iraq and described the implications of that decision for the work of the Special Commission, and noting also the letter from the Director General of the IAEA of 3 November 1998 (S/1998/1033, annex) which described the implications of the decision for the work of the IAEA,

    Determined to ensure immediate and full compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 and the other relevant resolutions,

    Recalling that the effective operation of the Special Commission and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991),

    Reaffirming its readiness to consider, in a comprehensive review, Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under all relevant resolutions once Iraq has rescinded its above-mentioned decision and its decision of 5 August 1998 and demonstrated that it is prepared to fulfil all its obligations, including in particular on disarmament issues, by resuming full cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the Secretary-General on 23 February 1998 (S/1998/166), endorsed by the Council in resolution 1154 (1998),

    Reiterating the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq,

    Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

    1. Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions;

    2. Demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998, to suspend cooperation with the Special Commission and to maintain restrictions on the work of the IAEA, and that Iraq provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA;

    3. Reaffirms its full support for the Special Commission and the IAEA in their efforts to ensure the implementation of their mandates under the relevant resolutions of the Council;

    4. Expresses its full support for the Secretary-General in his efforts to seek full implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding of 23 February 1998;

    5. Reaffirms its intention to act in accordance with the relevant provisions of resolution 687 (1991) on the duration of the prohibitions referred to in that resolution, and notes that by its failure so far to comply with its relevant obligations Iraq has delayed the moment when the Council can do so;

    6. Decides, in accordance with its primary responsibility under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security, to remain actively seized of the matter.

  • Canada Defies U.S. and Lobbies UN for Passage of NAC Resolution

    In response to US pressure to vote against the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) resolution in the General Assembly, THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT is sending representations at the ambassadorial level to the following capitals to ask them to support the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) resolution: Tokyo, The Hague, Bonn, Oslo, Rome, Vienna, Canberra, Madrid and Copenhagen.

    The Middle Powers Initiative (MPI) is urgently asking NGOs in all of these capitals to contact their governments in support of the NAC resolution in the General Assembly calling on the nuclear weapons states to honor their NPT promises for nuclear disarmament.

    While the capitals above are of key importance, don’t forget to write to your government, even if it is not scheduled to receive a visit from the Canadian government.

    THIS COULD BE A BREAKTHROUGH FOR ABOLITION IF WE ALL DO OUR PART!! OUR GOVERNMENTS NEED TO HEAR FROM US!!

    In the US, letters should be written to Clinton and Albright, asking them to stop strong-arming other countries which are trying to do the right thing by voting for the NAC resolution to put us on the path to nuclear abolition.

    PLEASE POST YOUR LETTERS TO THE CAUCUS AS AN INSPIRATION TO OTHERS!!

    Alice Slater
    Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
    15 East 26th Street, Room 915
    New York, NY 10010
    tel: (212) 726-9161
    fax: (212) 726-9160
    aslater@gracelinks.org

    and:

    Sue Broidy
    Coordinator, Abolition 2000
    Phone (805) 965 3443 FAX (805) 568 0466; a2000@silcom.com

  • United Nations Considering Two Resolutions That Would Advance the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons; Support Needed for New Agenda Coalition and Malaysian Resolutions

    The New Agenda Coalition (NAC) and Malaysia have submitted two resolutions in the United Nations which will advance the goals of Abolition 2000. The NAC Resolution, organized by the Eight Nation Intitiative of Ireland, Sweden, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, New Zealand, and Slovenia, calls on the nuclear weapons states ” to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their respective nuclear weapons and without delay to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to the elimination of these weapons, thereby fulfilling their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).”

    The Malaysian government has called for the commencement of “multilateral negotiations in 1999 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.” The two resolutions are complementary, and both work to further the Abolition 2000 agenda.

    IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE GAIN THE SUPPORT OF OUR GOVERNMENTS FOR THESE IMPORTANT INITIATIVES!

    The co-sponsors of the NAC resolution are Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Ireland, Lesotho, Liberia, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand-Aotearoa, Nigeria, Peru, Samoa, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

    The co-sponsors of the Malaysian resolution are Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Darussalam, Burundi, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Losotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Mynamar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

    If your government is NOT listed on both of the resolutions above, please activate your grassroots networks to send letters urging your government to vote in favor of the resolutions. (If they are on the list of sponsors, thank them for their efforts.)

    Time is short! Voting on all the NAC resolution may occur between November 6-13.

  • 13 Million Signatures in Support of Abolition 2000 Presented to the United Nations

    Press Conference, United Nations. Statement by Vernon C. Nichols on the Presentation to the United Nations of 13 Million Signatures in support of the Abolition 2000 Campaign.

    Members of the Diplomatic Missions to the United Nations, members of the press and fellow Non-Governmental Organization representatives: I am Vernon C. Nichols and I represent the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at the United Nations. Today, I am speaking in place of its President, Dr. David Krieger, who is also one of the leaders of Abolition 2000. I currently serve as President of the NGO Committee on Disarmament.

    It is an honor for me to participate in the presentation of the more than 13 million signatures in support of nuclear arms abolition to the UN and its announcement at this press conference. I commend Soka Gakkai International and its youth for the dedication shown by its members in this magnificent work. This is the kind of citizen activity which Abolition 2000 encouraged.

    Abolition 2000 is a global network of nearly 1100 citizen action groups in over 75 countries. It grew from an abolition caucus at the 1994 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference and has become a major citizens’ voice in the global movement for nuclear weapons abolition. It calls on all governments, but especially the nuclear weapons states, to commit themselves to three things:

    First, end the nuclear threat by withdrawing all nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, separating warheads from delivery vehicles, and commiting unconditional “no-first-use” of nuclear weapons.

    Second, sign an international treaty – a Nuclearn Weapons Convention – by the year 2000, agreeing to the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a fixed period of time.

    Third, reallocate resources from military purposes to assuring a sustainable global future.

    We believe that such a coalition can have a similar kind of success as that we have witnessed by the Coalition to Ban Landmines. The Soka Gakkai 13 million petition signatures show the strength of peoples’ hopes and prayers for peace, and the abolition of nuclear weapons as a vital component of that peace. Other important steps are the abolition appeals of the retired admirals and generals. Also the June 9th call for the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide by the eight nations in the New Agenda Coalition, including this appeal, “The International Community must not enter the third millenium with the prospect that the maintenance of these weaposn will be considered legitimate for the indefinite future, when the present juncture provides a unique opportunity to eradicate and prohibit them for all time.”

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, wrote an Open Letter to President Clinton in response to the nuclear testing by India and Pakistan. He concluded, “We must either move toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons, or we must expect further proliferation of these weapons to other states. In many respects the choice is yours. I hope that you will choose wisely – both for yourself and for humanity.” Thank you.

  • Statement of His Excellency Archbishop Renato R. Martino Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations on Landmines

    Before the First Committee of the 53rd Session Of the United Nations
    General Assembly

    General and Complete Disarmament
    New York City

    Mr. Chairman,

    The international community has, in recent times, witnessed some positive-albeit modest-trends in disarmament. An anti-personnel landmines treaty has come into existence and all who worked to make this a reality, deserve congratulations. Unknown numbers of innocent civilians, particularly children, will be spared the cruel maiming and death caused by these evil instruments. The Holy See, which expeditiously ratified the treaty, calls on all nations to do the same.

    The Holy See notes another recent gain in the new momentum given to the small arms issue. Small arms cause the violent death, injury and psychological trauma of hundreds of thousands of people each year. These simple and comparably inexpensive weapons of death find their way into areas of conflict and instability and, shockingly, even into the hands of children, who are locked into a culture of violence. Casualties often occur in the context of religious, ethnic, political and national conflicts. These conflicts are the cause for the existence of millions of refugees and internally displaced persons. The weaponization of society fuels cycles of violence, despair and ultimately state collapse. Thus, the establishment of the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, alongside the work of the Vienna Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, are a positive step forward.

    In the recent meeting, which took place in Oslo, government officials agreed that governments have primary responsibility to reduce the flow and accumulation of small arms. A study of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace noted the anomaly by which certain States have stringent controls on the international transfer of heavy arms, but few if any regarding the sale of small arms and handguns. The supplying of small arms must be regulated at its source, at the same time as efforts are being made to lessen the demand and to choke off access to illicit supplies. In certain areas there is an urgent need to ensure a more effective control of stockpiles. Furthermore, the sale of excess supplies of small arms and light weapons, rendered redundant either through modernization or reduction in the size of military forces, can lead, in a cascading effect, to an ongoing flow of sophisticated arms from developed to developing countries.

    Civil society also has an important role to play, for the human cost of small arms casualties is a societal issue. Reducing arms expenditures and heightened health care costs could enable more resources to be directed to sustainable development programs. The strain on public health care facilities in affected areas would be relieved and the physical and mental health of individuals and families improved. The new efforts to bring together the communities of international arms control and disarmament, humanitarian law, peace and security, public health, gun control, international development and conflict resolution, are hopeful signs of a new global awareness.

    The Holy See appeals, in particular, for increased measures to be taken to effectively identify those individuals and groups who traffic in small arms outside all bounds of legal control, and who, through their activity, unscrupulously contribute to violence and instability. More decisive international police and intelligence cooperation is required. A reliable system of marking small arms would make tracking more effective. All governments must ensure maximum transparency and absolute respect for their own norms and the norms of the international community concerning arms transfers, especially to conflict areas.

    Turning to the nuclear weapons field, the worthy initiative by eight states from different areas of the world which have formed the New Agenda Coalition, is a welcome advance. They have called on the governments of the nuclear weapons states and the nuclear weapons-capable states to commit themselves unequivocally to the elimination of nuclear weapons and to agree to start work immediately on the practical steps and negotiations required for its achievement

    In this context, the development of the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of prominent international nongovernmental organizations, is also welcomed. It aims at encouraging the governments of the nuclear weapons states and the nuclear weapons-capable states to move rapidly to a nuclear-weapon-free world.

    A measure of progress was made this year in the tentative agreement at the Conference on Disarmament to establish committee discussions on a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty. This work would be enhanced by a general recognition that steps toward non-proliferation must go hand-in-hand with steps to disarmament.

    The upgrading of the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs signals a higher priority that the UN itself will give to disarmament activities.

    Mr. Chairman, the review of positive developments I have just given should fill us with encouragement for the future. A distinct mark of our time, however, is that the work of disarmament is proceeding slowly. But an offsetting trend of negative developments is slowing us down further. These negative trend lines must be identified in order for us to take action.

    Foremost is the breakdown in the preparatory process for the 2000 Review of the NPT. During two sessions over two years, the NPT Preparatory Committee has struggled to find an acceptable format for deliberations on nuclear disarmament. The debates over terminology, subsidiary bodies and time schedules are but a surrogate for the real debate over a comprehensive program to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    It is not just the NPT that is in trouble. The impasse in the ratification process of both START II and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty bespeak the lingering resistance to disarmament. Further progress is inhibited by the failure to consolidate hard-earned gains.

    The testing of nuclear weapons by States which stand outside the NPT exacerbates the dangers caused by a weak nonproliferation regime. Nuclear testing by any nation is to be deplored. Criticism of those who test, however, does not deal adequately with the central problem. This is the determination of the nuclear weapons states to carry their nuclear weapons into the 21st Century, despite their obligation under the NPT to negotiate nuclear disarmament.

    The continued existence of 30,000 nuclear weapons almost a decade after the end of the Cold War, poses a grave danger to humanity. This is further worsened by the fact that 5,000 of these weapons are on alert status, meaning they are capable of being fired on thirty minutes’ notice. The danger of nuclear catastrophe through accident or terrorism is an unacceptable risk.

    Mr. Chairman, nothing so reveals the negative trend lines in disarmament as the continued insistence that nuclear weapons are essential to national security. The exaggerated claim that nuclear weapons are an aid to peace can only provoke other states to do the same. At this point, I would like to recall the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, that states have an obligation to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

    More over, what is deeply troubling is the prospect of a new nuclear arms race. The modernization programs of those who already have nuclear weapons, combined with the acquiring of nuclear weapons by other states, and research now going on in still others, plunge the world into more danger than existed during the Cold War. The longer this situation continues, the more a growing number of states will falsely claim that nuclear weapons are legitimate.

    The Holy See has stated before and states again: “Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation. The preservation of the Nonproliferation Treaty demands an unequivocal commitment to their abolition.” (Statement of the Holy See before the First Committee of the 52nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, 15 October 1997.)

    My delegation believes that the world must move more and more toward the abolition of nuclear weapons through a universal, non-discriminatory ban with intensive inspection by a universal authority. This process would begin by the nuclear weapons states committing themselves unequivocally to the elimination of their nuclear weapons and without delay to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations to this end. Practical steps to move this process forward should be taken immediately, such as de-alerting and de-activating nuclear weapons. A pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons should be made, as an interim step, by every State possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it would be a constructive step to hold an international conference on nuclear disarmament in which both governments and civil society could unite their strengths to develop the political will to take the courageous steps necessary for abolition.

    Mr. Chairman, the great task ahead for the Twenty-first Century is to move the world from a culture of violence and war to a culture of peace. UNESCO has already taken a lead in promoting a culture of peace. This consists in promoting values, attitudes and behaviors reflecting and inspiring social interaction and sharing, based on the principles of freedom, justice and democracy, human rights, tolerance and solidarity. Rather than intervening in violent conflicts after they have erupted and then engaging in post-conflict peace building, it is more human and more efficient to prevent such violence in the first place by addressing its roots.

    Let it not be said that the promotion of a culture of peace, the rooting out of the causes of violence, the abolition of nuclear weapons, are unreachable goals. The world has rid itself of the evils of legalized slavery, legalized colonialism and legalized apartheid. These were eliminated as the result of rising global awareness and political determination. So, also, the growing momentum to delegitimize and eliminate nuclear weapons must now be accompanied by political action by all States. Humanity deserves no less from us.

    Thank you Mr. Chairman.

     

  • World Medical Association Condemns Nuclear Weapons

    The World Medical Association, at its 50th WMA General Assembly, held in Ottawa, Canada, unanimously adopted the following Declaration on Nuclear Weapons:

    Preamble

    In October 1990, the World Medical Association (WMA) adopted a WMA Declaration on Chemical and Biological Weapons (Document 17.Y) in which it condemned and asked asked all governments to refrain from the development and use of these weapons, and urged national medical associations to join the WMA in actively supporting the Declaration. In adopting the Declaration, the WMA acknowledged the dangers and health hazards of the use of these weapons, including the indiscriminate and long lasting effects on civilian populations and on the environment, and argued that existing health care services, technology and manpower may be helpless to relieve the suffering caused by the weapons.

    The effects of nuclear weapons may be even more catastrophic, more indiscriminate, and longer lasting than chemical and biological weapons. These effects, based on studies of the affected populations and on studies of the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere, have been widely documented over the years.

    At least 40% of the population of Hiroshima and 26% of the population of Nagasaki were killed in the nuclear attacks on these two cities. Modern nuclear weapons are much more destructive and the casualties today would be much higher.

    Apart from the immediately lethal effects of blast, heat and radiation, many of the “survivors” would perish from the latent effects of ionising radiation, (leukaemia, cancer and genetic effects) as well as infectious diseases like cholera, tuberculosis and dysentery, arising from the breakdown in local services.

    Sunlight-absorbing particulate matter, generated by fires following a massive nuclear attack involving many weapons exploding at different sites, would reduce the penetration of sunlight to the earth’s surface and change the physical properties of the earth’s atmosphere, leading to prolonged periods of darkness and devastating effects on agricultural production.

    The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed many health professionals, destroyed all hospitals and infrastructure, such as electricity and water supply, and made it impossible for medical services to function at a time when they were most needed.

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its recent advisory opinion on the legal status of nuclear weapons, has declared that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is contrary to the United Nations Charter and to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.

    The ICJ, in view of the current state of international law, however, could not conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.

    The WMA Declarations of Geneva (Document 17.A), of Helsinki (Document 17.C) and of Tokyo (Document 17.F) make clear the duties, responsibilities and sacred mission of the medical profession to preserve and safeguard the health of the patient and to consecrate itself to the service of humanity.

    Recommendations

    The WMA considers that, with its unique position of influence in society, it has a duty to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons. In accord with this duty, the WMA:

    i) condemns the development, testing, production, deployment, threat and use of nuclear weapons; ii) requests all governments to refrain from the development, testing, production, deployment, threat and use of nuclear weapons, and to work in good faith towards the elimination of nuclear weapons;

    iii) requests all national medical associations to join the WMA in supporting this Declaration and to press their respective governments to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.

  • UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says ‘Conflict Is Worst Enemy of Development Everywhere’

    Following is the statement by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the opening meeting of the General Assembly’s First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) at the current session, in New York today:

    Mr. Chairman,
    Let me begin by congratulating you on your election to chair this important Committee.

    The fact that it is the First Committee of the General Assembly reflects the priority given to disarmament by the United Nations in its earliest days. I believe that emphasis was right.

    As you know, I decided last year to re-establish the Department for Disarmament Affairs with an Under-Secretary-General as its head. I was very pleased that the General Assembly supported that decision. I am glad also that it acted on my recommendation to review the work of the Disarmament Commission, and of this Committee. I know you plan to update, streamline and revitalize your work, and I look forward eagerly to the results.

    I am also delighted to have Jayantha Dhanapala as Under-Secretary-General. He is ideally qualified for the post, and has made an excellent start.

    Perhaps you are wondering why he is not here today. In a sense, Mr. Chairman, I am representing him, while he is representing me.

    He has gone at my request to the capital of your country [Belgium], to attend a conference on the important theme of “sustainable disarmament for sustainable development”. It is good that the connection between these two central themes of the United Nations agenda — disarmament and development — is increasingly being understood and recognized.

    Disarmament, Mr. Chairman, lies at the heart of this Organization’s efforts to maintain and strengthen international peace and security.

    It is sometimes said that weapons do not kill: people do. And it is true that in recent years some horrific acts of violence have been committed without recourse to sophisticated weapons.

    The Rwandan genocide is the example which haunts us all. But I could cite many others. Freshest in many of our minds, because of the horrific pictures we have seen, are the recent massacres in Kosovo.

    Small arms are used to inflict death or injury on thousands upon thousands of civilians every year. Even more shockingly, the overwhelming majority of these are women and children.

    So disarmament has to concern itself with small weapons, as well as large. I am glad that the international community is now coming to realize this.

    Let me salute, in particular, the moratorium initiated by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) on the trade and manufacture of small arms, and the recent entry into force of the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of, and Trafficking in, Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials. (Perhaps what we need next is a Convention Limiting the Length of the Titles of International Agreements!)

    I must also thank Michael Douglas — a redoubtable handler of small arms on the cinema screen — for his work as a Messenger of Peace, alerting public opinion to the terrible damage these weapons do cause in real life. I believe global civil society can be mobilized on this issue, as it has been so successfully on the issue of anti-personnel landmines.

    We must be thankful that so many Member States have signed and ratified the Ottawa Convention — a global ban on landmines — which will enter into force next March; and we must now work hard to make this ban universal.

    At the same time, we cannot afford to slacken our efforts to contain the proliferation of larger weapons, and especially of weapons of mass destruction. It would be the height of folly to take for granted that such weapons are too terrible ever to be used, and that States will keep them only as a deterrent.

    We know that nuclear weapons were used in 1945, with devastating effects from which the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still suffering more than half a century later.

    We know, too, that chemical weapons have been used extensively, notably against Iran, and against civilians in northern Iraq in 1988.

    There, too, the people of Halabja are still suffering the effects 10 years later, in the form of debilitating disease, deformed births and aborted pregnancies.

    As for the menace of biological weapons, it is almost too horrible to imagine. Yet, we know that some States have developed such weapons, and are keeping them in their arsenals.

    As long as States have such weapons at their disposal, there will always be the risk that sooner or later they resort to using them. And there is the ever-present risk that they will escape from the control of States and fall into the hands of terrorists.

    That is why we must intensify our efforts to expand the membership of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, and to make observance of them more verifiable.

    And that is why we must be concerned about the nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan this year.

    Of course, I warmly welcome the declarations of intent to adhere to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), made here in the General Assembly by the Prime Ministers of those two States.

    We must all work to ensure that that Treaty enters into force as soon as possible. But we must also work to finish the job of promoting universal adherence to all the key treaties on weapons of mass destruction, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). And we must bear in mind that the long-term sustainability of that Treaty depends on all parties working seriously to implement all its articles.

    The United Nations has worked for over half a century to eliminate nuclear weapons everywhere and to oppose their acquisition anywhere. Given the potential devastation from the use of even one nuclear weapon, I believe global nuclear disarmament must remain at the top of our agenda. I look to this Committee to take the lead in working to rid the world of this menace, as well as that of chemical and biological weapons.

    I said just now that disarmament and development are intimately connected. I believe they are so in two ways.

    First, disarmament is essential to effective conflict prevention or post- conflict peace-building in many parts of the developing world, and conflict is the worst enemy of development everywhere.

    Secondly, even when an arms race does not lead directly to conflict, it still constitutes a cruel diversion of skills and resources away from development.

    While so many human needs remain unsatisfied, millions of people on this planet depend for their livelihood on producing, or distributing, or maintaining engines designed only to destroy — engines of which the best one can hope is that they will not be used.

    That is a terrible waste. More than that, it is a source of deep shame. As long as it continues, none of us can take much pride in our humanity. The world looks to the United Nations, and the United Nations looks to this Committee, to lead it in a different and more hopeful direction.

    I wish you every success in your work. Be assured you will have all the support that we in the Secretariat can give you.

     

  • Excerpt from Senator Douglas Roche’s first speech in Canada’s Senate

    …Third, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the high potential for a significant Canadian contribution to international peace and security. We are an important middle-power country, and our leadership is needed in addressing the most compelling problem faced by the world community today. The continued existence of 30,000 nuclear weapons almost a decade after the end of the Cold War is an affront to humanity. Five thousand of these weapons are on alert status, meaning they are capable of being fired on 30 minutes’ notice.

    The New England Journal of Medicine recently warned:

    The risk of an accidental nuclear attack has increased in recent years, threatening a public health disaster of unprecedented scale. I was part of a Project Ploughshares team that conducted roundtables on the subject of nuclear weapons for community leaders in 16 cities in 10 provinces during the month of September. These two-and-a-half-hour roundtables were attended by 378 persons representing a wide range of Canadians: members of Parliament, members of provincial legislatures, mayors, municipal councillors, school board members, business and religious leaders, and so on. These informed Canadians want the Government of Canada to take an unambiguous stand in support of new, worldwide efforts to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

    The International Court of Justice, the highest legal authority in the world, says nations are obliged to conclude negotiations leading to such elimination. Former military leaders, presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers around the world are calling for a global ban. The Abolition 2000 movement, supported by 1,000 non-governmental organizations, many of them right here in Canada, want negotiations completed by the year 2000. That would lead, then, to an international treaty that would take, perhaps, a quarter of a century to implement. The essential point is that failure to negotiate future eliminations now is leading to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    By testing their nuclear weapons a few months ago, India and Pakistan have exposed the cracks in the non-proliferation regime. As long as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China – maintain their arsenals of nuclear weapons, other states will naturally seek to acquire them.

    Since nuclear weapons have become the currency of power, how can we expect aspiring states not to acquire them? The current breakdown in the preparatory process for the 2000 review of the non-proliferation treaty reveals the central problem the world faces: Either there will be a global ban on nuclear weapons or they will spread to more nations, with escalating danger to the world.

    Thus, a New Agenda Coalition of eight important states – Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, and Sweden – was formed this summer to seek an unequivocal commitment from the states possessing nuclear weapons to start immediately a process of negotiation leading to the elimination of those weapons.

    Canada has so far refused to join this new coalition. Why? Because NATO continues to insist, despite the logic of the post-Cold War era, that nuclear weapons are “essential.” That is NATO’s word. Trying to be loyal to NATO, Canada thus votes against resolutions at the United Nations calling for the commencement of negotiations. That has to stop. The vast majority of Canadians want an end to the terrible spectre of nuclear weapons. They want Canada to take a leading role in working with like-minded states to get negotiations going. I support the efforts of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

    This week, the Middle Powers Initiative, a network of seven prominent, international, non-governmental organizations specializing in nuclear disarmament, sent a delegation to Ottawa. They were met by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, and were received by the Prime Minister. The delegation urged the Government of Canada to vote at the United Nations this fall for a new resolution sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition which would call upon states possessing nuclear weapons to start and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Canada should vote “yes” on this resolution.

    There is not a shred of justification for NATO to keep its nuclear weapons in this new age of east-west partnership. NATO, which still has a valuable role to play in security questions, does not need nuclear weapons, and Canada should work to get nuclear weapons out of NATO.

    Honourable senators, 14 years ago, I made what I thought was my last speech in Parliament. Taking my leave of the House of Commons after 12 years of service, I said:

    Canada, with its history and geography, its freedom and democracy, its resources and technology, and its space and industry, is ideally placed to work for the conditions of peace.

    By the unforeseen twists of fate, I now re-enter Parliament, and my first words are to repeat my call for Canada to work for peace, reconciliation and social justice in the world.

    In my career as a journalist, author, parliamentarian, diplomat, and educator, I have been in every region of the world. There is no land more blessed than Canada.

    The United Nations regularly attests to that fact. I love this country. I love Alberta, my home province. I love Quebec, the province of my birth. My children live in four different cities across Canada. I love St. John’s, and the whole of Newfoundland. I love Victoria, British Columbia, and the whole of Vancouver Island. I want this country to stay together. I want our people to work together. I want our political process to come together.

    There is too much alienation in our society, too much polarization, too much confrontation. I want to contribute to a spirit of reconciliation, an atmosphere of healing, a new basis of hope, as we prepare for the third millennium.

    We simply must find ways of offering genuine hope to young people so that they can truly benefit from a more equitable economy, a reformed Senate and a more dynamic role in world affairs.

    Conscious that I am only one person, I will contribute all my strength to moving Canada forward. Together, we in this historic place can help build Canada anew.

  • Appeal on Proposed Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel from Kozloduy to Russia Vienna, Austria

    Signed by 46 Representatives of European NGOs

    We, undersigned representatives of environmental organizations, scientists, politicians, are in strong opposition to proposed transportation of spent nuclear fuel from Bulgarian nuclear plant Kozloduy to Russia for the reprocessing. Spent nuclear fuel is high-level nuclear waste produced by nuclear industry and its transportation poses significant danger to the environment and population of the countries through which the spent nuclear fuel will be transported. According to the agreement between the governments of Bulgaria, Russia, Ukraine and Moldova, signed on November 28, 1997, in Sofia (Bulgaria) the Kozloduy’s spent nuclear fuel must be transported to Russian reprocessing facility “Mayak” through Ukraine and Moldova. There were already many protests by citizen’s groups in these countries against the proposed nuclear transport, even the Moldovian Environmental Minister asserted that the transportation through the terrotory of Moldova is illegal. These weren’t taken into account by the governmental institutions in all four countries. Citizens’ rights for healthy environment and access to information are totally ignored by the mentioned agreement: population of participating countries aren’t informed about the risk of nuclear transportation which, in case of an accident, could cause a great damage to the environment and public health. According to the statistical data of Russian Ministry of Atomic Power, 43% of all the nuclear incidents occurred during transportation in different stages of nuclear-fuel cycle. Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is the most dangerous process the nuclear-fuel cycle consist of – largest nuclear accident in USSR happened to “Mayak” reprocessing facility in 1957 when the amount of radioactivity that was released to the environment was 2,5 times more than during Chernobyl accident. Reprocessing creates additional liquid radioactive waste which quantity is 160 times more, compared to spent nuclear fuel’ amount before reprocessing. According to acting Russian legislative act – decree No. 773 signed by the President of Russia on July 29, 1995 – waste of reprocessing will be sent back to Bulgaria. The Bulgarian public isn’t informed about this condition. Total ignorance of public right by the governments of post-communist countries can seriously damage the process of establishing democratic traditions in Eastern Europe. The public will must be respected. Eastern governments should run the public participation procedures for such a controversial issues through which public may express its concerns.

    We demand to cancel the plan for transportation of Kozloduy’s spent nuclear fuel through Ukraine and Moldova to Russia, as well as its reprocessing. No more spent nuclear fuel should be produced or transported by Bulgaria. Investments should be made into: the finding of a solution for spent nuclear fuel problem right at the Kozloduy’ site immediately; development of renewable sources of energy and energy-efficiency programs in Bulgaria in order to replace dangerous and unnecessary nuclear power reactors.

    Signature:
    46 REPRESENTATIVES OF EUROPEAN NGOS
    Date and Place:
    VIENNA/AUSTRIA, SEPT 25-27, 1998