Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: UN News Center

  • Reviving Nuclear Disarmament in the Non-Proliferation Regime Opening Remarks

    This panel on “Reviving Nuclear Disarmament in the Non-Proliferation Regime” is of tremendous importance to the outcome of this Seventh Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Beyond that, it may prove vital to the present and future security of our planet. I am very pleased to be a part of it.

    Although the public is largely unaware of this, it is no secret to any of you that nuclear disarmament is a central component of the non-proliferation bargain. On the one hand, this treaty provides obligations to halt nuclear proliferation; on the other, it provides obligations to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    This makes perfect sense, of course, for the two obligations are highly interlinked. Without fulfilling disarmament obligations, it will not be possible to prevent proliferation. And should there be further nuclear proliferation, nuclear disarmament will be all the more difficult.

    There has been much emphasis in the news – a subject with which I have some familiarity – about the dangers of nuclear proliferation. Unfortunately, the nuclear disarmament obligations of the nuclear weapons states receive far less attention in news reporting, (at least within the United States). This may well be simply because a degree of isolationism still exists across the breadth of our land. That manifests itself in a down-playing of international news. Too often there is only minimum attention given by our local news media, print and broadcast, to the deeper, more intricate stories about our global community, its problems and hopes.

    I’m afraid that a far too large percentage of our population does not recognize that nuclear disarmament is an essential component of the non-proliferation bargain. It is reason for us to worry. It seems that the United States and the other nuclear weapons states are trying to evade their obligations and responsibilities under this critical treaty.

    These countries have in the first instance behaved as though the “unequivocal undertaking” which they made five years ago at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, was subject to being discarded at will. They commit a similar affront to the non-proliferation treaty community by ignoring other of their promises.

    Such behavior strains the credibility of these countries and puts the outcome of this Review Conference in jeopardy of failure. That outcome, of course, would be a tragedy for the world.

    In this 60th year of the Nuclear Age, we must all be thinking about what can be done to assure a future for human beings on our planet. As the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have continually warned – “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.”

    As a species, we are neither smart enough nor careful enough to continue to live with nuclear weapons in our midst. So far we have been lucky in that since the end of World War II, nuclear weapons have not been used again in war. But there is no telling how long this luck will last. We certainly cannot count on it to last indefinitely.

    Therefore, we must get back to basics. We must return to the nuclear disarmament part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty bargain. And we must do so with clarity of purpose and determination to succeed. This is what my very distinguished fellow panelists are here to talk about today. The panelists include both representatives of civil society and of government. They all have worked on these issues with extraordinary dedication for a very long time.

    I urge the delegates to this treaty conference to listen to them carefully – and to act with certainty that the future of humanity, including yet unborn generations, is dependent upon your success – right here and right now! You have a very important responsibility and the future is in your hands.

    I trust that you will act with the foresight, courage and resolve that our current situation demands.

    Walter Cronkite is an eminent broadcast journalist and recipient of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2004 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

  • Lessons of Iraq War Underscore Importance of UN Charter – Annan

    Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes that the Iraq war in 2003 demonstrated the need for the international community to address the issue of preventive action in the context of Charter principles and showed the importance of joint efforts on matters of use of force, a United Nations spokesman said today.

    Responding to media questions about the Secretary-General’s comments in a BBC interview, spokesman Fred Eckhard told a press briefing in New York that in his remarks the Secretary-General had reiterated his well-known position that the military action against Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter.

    In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was “illegal.” “Yes,” he finally said, “I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.”

    The Secretary-General said the war in Iraq  and its aftermath had brought home painful lessons about the importance of resolving use-of-force issues jointly through the UN. “I think that in the end everybody is concluding that it is best to work together with allies and through the UN to deal with some of those issues.

    “And I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time,” the Secretary-General told the interviewer, noting that such action needed UN approval and a much broader support of the international community.

    Mr. Eckhard stressed that this had been the Secretary-General’s longstanding view. The spokesman added that one of the purposes of a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which the Secretary-General had established, was to look at the issue of preventive war and to see how it could be employed in conformity with the Charter, which does not allow pre-emptive attacks.

    “He has over the past more than a year used the words ‘not in conformity with the Charter’ to describe his view of the Iraq war and of course one of his purposes in establishing the UN panel on change was to look at the question of preventive war and try to bring that in conformity with the Charter principles, which do not promote preventive war,” Mr. Eckhard said.

    “Since the war he has been emphasizing the need for nations on the Security Council and the UN membership as a whole to pull together, saying it is in everyone’s interest that stability be restored to Iraq ,” the spokesman said. “So once the invasion took place, he did not look back, he looked forward.”

    “But the principle of the Charter, called into question in his view by the invasion, needs to be addressed in a serious way,” Mr. Eckhard added. “And he asked the high level panel to look specifically at that issue. That panel is supposed to report by the end of this year and the Secretary-General would formulate his recommendations and put them to the General Assembly.”

  • 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.

  • 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.