Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Disarmament

  • Open Letter to President Obama

    April 16, 2014

    Dear President Obama,

    During the closing session of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague on March 25, 2014, you cited a number of concrete measures to secure highly-enriched uranium and plutonium and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime that have been implemented as a result of the three Nuclear Security Summits, concluding: “So what’s been valuable about this summit is that it has not just been talk, it’s been action.”

    Would that you would apply the same standard to nuclear disarmament! On April 5, 2009 in Prague, you gave millions of people around the world new hope when you declared: “So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Bolstered by that hope, over the past three years, there has been a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives by governments not possessing nuclear weapons, both within and outside the United Nations. Yet the United States has been notably “missing in action” at best, and dismissive or obstructive at worst. This conflict may come to a head at the 2015 Review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

    We write now, on the eve of the third Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting for the 2015 Review Conference of the NPT, which will take place at UN headquarters in New York April 28 – May 9, 2014, to underscore our plea that your administration shed its negative attitude and participate constructively in deliberations and negotiations regarding the creation of a multilateral process to achieve a nuclear weapons free world.  This will require reversal of the dismal U.S. record.

     

    • The 2010 NPT Review Conference unanimously agreed to hold a conference in 2012, to be attended by all states in the region, on a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear and other Weapons of Mass Destruction. The U.S. was a designated convener, and a date was set for December 2012 in Helsinki. The Finnish ambassador worked feverishly, meeting individually with all of the countries in the region to facilitate the conference. Suddenly, on November 23, 2012, the U.S. State Department announced that the Helsinki conference was postponed indefinitely.
    • In March 2013, Norway hosted an intergovernmental conference in Oslo on the Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons, with 127 governments in attendance. Mexico hosted a follow-on conference in Nayarit, Mexico in February 2014, with 146 governments present. The U.S. boycotted Oslo and Nayarit. Austria has announced that it will host a third conference, in Vienna, late this year.
    • In November 2012, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) established an “Open-Ended” working group open to all member states “to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons,” and scheduled for September 26, 2013, the first-ever High-Level meeting of the UNGA devoted to nuclear disarmament. The U.S. voted against both resolutions and refused to participate in the Open-Ended working group, declaring in advance that it would disregard any outcomes.
    • The U.S. did send a representative to the UN “High-Level” meeting, but it was the Deputy Secretary for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, rather than the President, Vice-President or Secretary of State. Worse, the U.S. joined with France and the U.K. in a profoundly negative statement, delivered by a junior British diplomat: “While we are encouraged by the increased energy and enthusiasm around the nuclear disarmament debate, we regret that this energy is being directed toward initiatives such as this High-Level Meeting, the humanitarian consequences campaign, the Open-Ended Working Group and the push for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.”
    • In contrast, Dr. Hassan Rouhani, the new President of Iran, used the occasion of the High-Level Meeting to roll out a disarmament “roadmap” on behalf of the 120 member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The roadmap calls for: “early commencement of negotiations, in the Conference on Disarmament, on a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons for the prohibition of their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and for their destruction; designation of 26 September every year as an international day to renew our resolve to completely eliminate nuclear weapons;” and “convening a High-level International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament in five years to review progress in this regard.” The NAM roadmap was subsequently adopted by the UNGA with 129 votes in favor. The U.S voted no.

    Meanwhile, your Administration’s FY 2015 budget request seeks a 7% increase for nuclear weapons research and production programs under the Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). NNSA’s “Total Weapons Activities” are slated to rise to $8.2 billion in FY 2015 and to $9.7 billion by 2019, 24% above fiscal year 2014. Your Administration is also proposing a $56 billion Opportunity Growth and Security Initiative (OGSI) to be funded through tax changes and spending reforms. OGSI is to be split evenly between defense and non-defense spending, out of which $504 million will go to NNSA nuclear weapons programs “to accelerate modernization and maintenance of nuclear facilities.” With that, your FY 2015 budget request for maintenance and modernization of nuclear bombs and warheads in constant dollars exceeds the amount spent in 1985 for comparable work at the height of President Reagan’s surge in nuclear weapons spending, which was also the highest point of Cold War spending.

    We are particularly alarmed that your FY 2015 budget request includes $634 million (up 20%) for the B61 Life Extension Program, which, in contravention of your 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, as confirmed by former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz, will have improved military capabilities to attack targets with greater accuracy and less radioactive fallout.

    This enormous commitment to modernizing nuclear bombs and warheads and the laboratories and factories to support those activities does not include even larger amounts of funding for planned replacements of delivery systems – the bombers, missiles and submarines that form the strategic triad, which are funded through the Department of Defense.  In total, according to the General Accounting Office, the U.S. will spend more than $700 billion over the next 30 years to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons systems. The James Martin Center places the number at an astounding one trillion dollars. This money is desperately needed to address basic human needs – housing, food security, education, healthcare, public safety, education and environmental protection – here and abroad.

    The Good Faith Challenge

    This our third letter to you calling on the U.S. government to participate constructively and in good faith in all international disarmament forums. On June 6, 2013, we wrote: “The Nuclear Security Summit process you initiated has been a success. However, securing nuclear materials, while significant, falls well short of what civil society expected following your Prague speech.”  In that letter, we urged you to you speak at the September 26, 2013 High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament at the United Nations; to endorse UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Five-Point Proposal on Nuclear Disarmament; to announce your convening of a series of Nuclear Disarmament Summits; to support extending the General Assembly’s Open-Ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons; and to announce that the U.S. would participate in the follow-on conference on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons in Mexico in early 2014.

    In our second letter, dated January 29, 2014, we urged that you direct the State Department to send a delegation to the Mexico conference and to participate constructively; and that your administration shed its negative attitude and participate constructively in deliberations and negotiations regarding the creation of a multilateral process to achieve a nuclear weapons free world. And we called on the United States to engage in good faith in efforts to make the Conference on Disarmament productive in pursuing the objective for which it was established more than three decades ago: complete nuclear disarmament; and to work hard to convene soon the conference on a zone free of WMD in the Middle East promised by the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

    Since our last letter, the U.S. – Russian relationship has deteriorated precipitously, with the standoff over the Crimea opening the real possibility of a new era of confrontation between nuclear-armed powers. The current crisis will further complicate prospects for future arms reduction negotiations with Russia, already severely stressed by more than two decades of post-Cold War NATO expansion, deployment of U.S. missile defenses, U.S. nuclear weapons modernization and pursuit of prompt conventional global strike capability.

    Keeping Our Side of the NPT Bargain

    Article VI of the NPT, which entered into force in 1970, and is the supreme law of the land pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

    In 1996, the International Court of Justice, the judicial branch of the United Nations and the highest and most authoritative court in the world on questions of international law, unanimously concluded: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    Forty-four years after the NPT entered into force, more than 17,000 nuclear weapons, most held by the U.S. and Russia, pose an intolerable threat to humanity. The International Red Cross has stated that “incalculable human suffering” will result from any use of nuclear weapons, and that there can be no adequate humanitarian response capacity.   Declaring that “our nation’s deep economic crisis can only be addressed by adopting new priorities to create a sustainable economy for the 21st century,” the bi-partisan U.S. Conference of Mayors has called on the President and Congress to slash nuclear weapons spending and to redirect those funds to meet the urgent needs of cities.

    We reiterate the thrust of the demands set forth in our letters of June 13, 2013 and January 29, 2014, and urge you to look to them for guidance in U.S. conduct at the 2014 NPT PrepCom. We stress the urgent need to press the “reset” button with Russia again. Important measures in this regard are an end to NATO expansion and a halt to anti-missile system deployments in Europe.

     

    • We urge you to work hard to fully implement all commitments you made in the Nuclear Disarmament action plan agreed by the 2010 NPT Review Conference and to convene the promised conference on a zone free of WMD in the Middle East at the earliest possible date.
    • We urge you again to take this opportunity to endorse UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Five-Point Proposal on Nuclear Disarmament, to announce your convening of a series of Nuclear Disarmament Summits, and to engage in good faith in efforts to make the Conference on Disarmament productive in pursuing the objective for which it was established more than three decades ago: complete nuclear disarmament.
    • We call on you to declare that the U.S. will participate constructively and in good faith in the third intergovernmental conference on humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons to be held in Vienna late this year.
    • As an immediate signal of good faith, we call on your Administration to halt all programs to modernize nuclear weapons systems, and to reduce nuclear weapons spending to the minimum necessary to assure the safety and security of the existing weapons as they await disablement and dismantlement.

    Mr. President: It’s time to move from talk to action on nuclear disarmament. There have never been more opportunities, and the need is as urgent as ever.

    We look forward to your positive response.

    Sincerely,

    Initiating organizations:

    Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation
    [contact for this letter: wslf@earthlink.net; (510) 839-5877
    655 – 13th Street, Suite 201, Oakland, CA 94612]

    John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

    Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action

    David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Joseph Gerson, Disarmament Coordinator, American Friends Service Committee (for identification only)

    Alicia Godsberg, Executive Director, Peace Action New York

    Endorsing organizations (national):

    Robert Gould, MD, President, Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Tim Judson, Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service

    Michael Eisenscher, National Coordinator, U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)

    Michael McPhearson, Interim Executive Director, Veterans for Peace

    David Swanson, WarIsACrime.org

    Jill Stein, President, Green Shadow Cabinet

    Terry K. Rockefeller, National Co-Convener, United for Peace and Justice

    Hendrik Voss, National Organizer, School of the Americas Watch (SOA Watch)

    Alfred L. Marder, President, US Peace Council

    Robert Hanson, Treasurer, Democratic World Federalists

    Alli McCracken, National Coordinator, CODEPINK

    Margaret Flowers, MD and Kevin Zeese, JD, Popular Resistance

    Endorsing organizations (by state):

    Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) Livermore, California

    Blase Bonpane, Ph.D., Director, Office of the Americas, California

    Linda Seeley, Spokesperson, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, California

    Susan Lamont, Center Coordinator, Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County, California

    Chizu Hamada, No Nukes Action, California

    Lois Salo, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Peninsula Branch, California

    Rev. Marilyn Chilcote, Beacon Presbyterian Fellowship, Oakland, California

    Margli Auclair, Executive Director, Mount Diablo Pleace and Justice Center. California

    Roger Eaton, Communications Chair, United Nations Association-USA, San Francisco Chapter, California

    Dr. Susan Zipp, Vice President, Association of World Citizens, San Francisco, California
    Michael Nagler, President, Metta Center for Nonviolence, California (for identification only)

    Rev. Marilyn Chilcote McKenzie, Parish Associate, St. John’s Presbyterian Church of Berkeley, California (for identification only)

    James E. Vann, Oakland Tenants Union, California (for identification only)

    Vic and Barby Ulmer, Our Developing World, California (for identification only)

    Judith Mohling, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Colorado

    Bob Kinsey, Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War

    Medard Gabel, Executive Director, Pacem in Terris, Delaware

    Roger Mills, Coordinator, Georgia Peace & Justice Coalition, Henry County Chapter

    Bruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Maine

    Lisa Savage, CODEPINK, Maine

    Natasha Mayers, Whitefield, Maine Union of Maine Visual Artists

    Shirley “Lee” Davis, GlobalSolutions.org, Maine Chapter

    Lynn Harwood, the Greens of Anson, Maine

    Dagmar Fabian, Crabshell Alliance, Maryland

    Judi Poulson, Chair, Fairmont Peace Group, Minnesota

    Marcus Page-Collonge, Nevada Desert Experience, Nevada

    Gregor Gable, Shundahai Network, Nevada

    Jay Coghlan, Executive Director, Nuclear Watch New Mexico

    Joni Arends, Executive Director, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, New Mexico

    Lucy Law Webster, Executive Director, The CENTER FOR WAR/PEACE STUDIES, New York

    Alice Slater, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, New York

    Sheila Croke, Pax Christi Long Island, chapter of the international Catholic peace movement, New York

    Richard Greve, Co Chair, Staten Island Peace Action, New York

    Rosemarie Pace, Director, Pax Christi Metro New York

    Carol De Angelo, Director of Peace, Justice and Integrity of Creation, Sisters of Charity of New York (for identification only)

    Gerson Lesser, M.D., Clinical Professor, New York University School of Medicine (for identification only)

    Ellen Thomas, Proposition One Campaign, North Carolina

    Vina Colley, Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, Ohio

    Harvey Wasserman, Solartopia, Ohio

    Ray Jubitz, Jubitz Family Foundation, Oregon

    Cletus Stein, convenor, The Peace Farm, Texas

    Steven G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT, INND (Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders), Washington

    Allen Johnson, Coordinator, Christians For The Mountains, West Virginia

    cc:

    John Kerry, Secretary of State
    Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
    Thomas M. Countryman, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and
    Nonproliferation
    Susan Rice, National Security Advisor
    Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor
    Samantha Power, Permanent Representative to the United Nations
    Christopher Buck, Chargé d’Affaires, a.i., Conference on Disarmament
    Walter S. Reid, Deputy Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament

  • The Doublespeak of Nuclear Disarmament

    This article was originally published on the Huffington Post.

    Kate HudsonIt’s easy to say you want a world without nuclear weapons. Nearly everyone does: even David Cameron. It’s like saying there should be no global poverty: the hard part is taking action to do something about it.

    Imagine if David Cameron returned from his recent trade-boosting visit to China and had to concede, shamefaced, that he hadn’t mentioned trade with the UK.

    Worse still: what if he returned and boasted of the fact that he hadn’t mentioned trade with the UK?

    Well this is precisely what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has just done following a UN meeting on nuclear disarmament.

    ‘What discussions,’ FCO Minister Hugh Robertson was asked in Parliament, ‘were held by [the FCO] on the replacement of the Trident submarines at the recent High Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament at the UN?’

    ‘No discussions’, he replied.

    Even more disturbingly, Robertson went on to claim that this was all good and proper.

    ‘Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the current system is fully consistent with our obligations as a recognised nuclear weapon state under the treaty on the non-proliferation (NPT) of nuclear weapons,’ he stated.

    Disingenuous doublespeak. He may as well have said: “building new nuclear weapons is the same as negotiating to get rid of them.”

    And that is precisely what the UK, and all other nuclear armed states, are bound to do by the NPT. Article VI of the treaty states:

    ‘Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.’

    The UK government claims to have a long-standing commitment to multilateral initiatives towards a world free of nuclear weapons, but it simply doesn’t practice what it preaches.

    One recent initiative which the UK won’t even engage with is around the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons: supported by 125 states as well as NGOs around the world.

    But the UK, in a joint statement with France and the US, expressed ‘regret’ that states and civil society actors have sought to highlight these dangers.

    After a landmark conference on this issue in Oslo this year – which the British government failed to attend, despite Defence Secretary Philip Hammond being in Norway at the time – the UK still hasn’t RSVP’d to an invitation from the Mexican government to go to the follow-up conference in 2014.

    Here, our friend Hugh Robertson at the FCO can shed a little more light on the government’s position:

    ‘We are concerned that some efforts under the humanitarian initiative appear increasingly aimed at negotiating a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the possession of nuclear weapons’.

    What a concern! States and global civil society want the UK to fulfil its treaty obligations and ‘negotiate’ towards disarmament!?

    The government’s apparent aversion to a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) is all the more disturbing given how instrumental the framework of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has been recently in the historic elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. These treaty apparatuses have been shown to enable and facilitate true progress on disarmament, yet the UK still refuses to join the call for similar initiatives for nuclear weapons.

    When this is the attitude of our politicians, how can we see their professed commitment to disarmament as anything other than shallow and meaningless rhetoric?

  • UN Meeting Offers Chance for Disarmament Progress

    Douglas RocheAn unprecedented high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament will be held at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 26.

    For the first time in the 68-year history of the UN, heads of government or at least foreign ministers will devote their attention to “the complete elimination of nuclear weapons” as “essential to remove the danger of nuclear war.”

    Though the UN resolution setting up the meeting was adopted nearly unanimously, the United States, United Kingdom and France abstained (Russia and China voted yes). Given this lack of enthusiasm by the three Western nuclear powers, what is this special meeting likely to achieve?

    With world attention riveted on Syria, nuclear disarmament does not rate high in polls of public concerns. But as Syria showed with the actual use of chemical weapons, public outrage will skyrocket if an aggressor ever launches a nuclear device of some sort. Every informed observer knows that the only guarantee against the use of nuclear weapons is the complete elimination of all 17,000 of such weapons still remaining.

    While the international spotlight has been on Iran’s nuclear program and North Korea’s testing of nuclear weapons, the heart of the nuclear weapons problem remains the intransigence of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the same five original members of the nuclear weapons club, who each possess a veto and who could not agree on Syria.

    Even though calls for nuclear disarmament escalated through the years, the nuclear weapons states have consistently dodged any real efforts for nuclear disarmament. This year alone, they boycotted a Norway government conference attended by 127 states on the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences” of the use of nuclear weapons, and ignored three special inter-government meetings in Geneva called to do preparatory work for negotiating the end of nuclear weapons.

    The US and Russia have engaged in bilateral rounds of reductions, but the trumpeting of lower numbers has masked their continued modernization of warheads, delivery systems and infrastructure. The 2013 Yearbook of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute states that the nuclear weapons powers, which continue to deploy new nuclear weapons and delivery systems, “appear determined to retain their nuclear arsenals indefinitely.”

    A double standard has deeply conflicted NATO, which continues to claim that the possession of nuclear weapons provides the “supreme guarantee” of the security of its 26 member states. At one and the same time, the NATO states reaffirm their commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty goal of nuclear disarmament and their NATO dependence on nuclear weapons.

    The policies are incoherent. The US, UK and France drive NATO and have made it the world’s biggest nuclear-armed alliance. The continued deployment of US tactical nuclear bombs on the soil of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, though resisted by growing numbers of people in those countries, is a standing provocation to Russia, which is consequently disinclined to lower its own huge numbers of tactical nuclear weapons. Russia is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons while it is virtually surrounded by an expanding NATO.

    US-Russia bilateral negotiations for deeper cuts are stalled over such issues as the US’s proposed missile defence system in Europe, the militarization of space, and the US intention to militarily dominate air, land, sea, space and cyberwarfare. Nuclear disarmament is inevitably caught up in geopolitical tensions. US President Barack Obama, who in 2009 convened the first Security Council meeting devoted to the issue, has tried to move nuclear disarmament forward, but received little support from his allies.

    Maybe the nuclear powers won’t do much at the extraordinary meeting on Sept. 26, but this is definitely an opportunity for non-nuclear weapons states to make their views heard. They should demand that the long-awaited Middle East conference on removing all weapons of mass destruction from the region take place. Had this preventive diplomacy action been taken in a timely manner, the Syrian crisis might never have erupted.

    In 2008, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon suggested that the international community start work on a nuclear weapons convention or a framework of instruments to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world. This work would amount to a global legal ban on all nuclear weapons.

    This brings us to Canada’s role at the Sept. 26 meeting. In 2010, both the Senate and the House of Commons unanimously adopted a motion calling on the government of Canada to support Ban Ki-moon’s proposals and to launch “a major worldwide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear disarmament.”

    This Parliamentary action was spurred by a campaign by members of the Order of Canada, now numbering 700, who signed an appeal for the government to act on building a global ban on nuclear weapons. Many parliamentarians and Order of Canada members have united in calling on Canada to host a meeting in Ottawa of like-minded states to push this work forward. The Middle Powers Initiative, a civil society organization working with middle power states on this issue, convened such a meeting in Berlin earlier this year.

    Canada has an opportunity on Sept. 26 to make an important contribution to the verified elimination of nuclear weapons, before the world experiences another crisis over weapons of mass destruction. It should be remembered that Foreign Minister John Baird was, at the time, the government house leader who pushed through Parliament the unanimous motion calling for action.

    This article was originally published by Embassy.

  • Eliminating Nuclear Weapons is Just as Important as Eliminating Chemical Weapons

    Lawrence WittnerThe apparent employment of chemical weapons in Syria should remind us that, while weapons of mass destruction exist, there is a serious danger that they will be used.

    That danger is highlighted by an article in the September/October 2013 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Written by two leading nuclear weapons specialists, Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris of the Federation of American Scientists, the article provides important information about nuclear weapons that should alarm everyone concerned about the future of the planet.

    At present, the article reports, more than 17,000 nuclear warheads remain in the possession of nine nations (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea). Over 90 percent of that inventory consists of U.S. and Russian warheads. These weapons, of course, are incredibly destructive, and almost all of them can massacre populations far more effectively than did the atomic bomb that obliterated the city of Hiroshima. Indeed, a single one of these weapons can slaughter hundreds of thousands of people.

    Although U.S., Russian, British, and French stockpiles of nuclear weapons have been declining since the end of the Cold War, those of the five other nuclear nations have been growing. Consequently, as Kristensen and Norris observe, with the possible exception of North Korea, all of these countries “have sufficient numbers of warheads and delivery systems to inflict enormous destruction over significant ranges with catastrophic humanitarian and climatic consequences in their regions and beyond.”

    Furthermore, many of these deadly weapons stand ready for almost instant use. As the authors state, “roughly 1,800 U.S. and Russian warheads are on high alert atop long-range ballistic missiles that are ready to launch 5 to 15 minutes after receiving an order.”

    But surely these terrible weapons are being phased out, aren’t they? After all, the major nuclear powers, plus most nations, have formally committed themselves to building a nuclear weapons-free world. And it is certainly true that the number of nuclear weapons on the world scene has dropped very significantly from the roughly 70,000 that existed in 1986.

    Even so, there are numerous signs that the nuclear disarmament momentum is slowing. Not only have nuclear disarmament negotiations between the United States (with 7,700 nuclear warheads) and Russia (with 8,500 nuclear warheads) apparently run aground, but none of the nuclear powers seems to take the rhetoric about a nuclear weapons-free world seriously. Kristensen and Norris note: “All the nations with nuclear weapons continue to modernize or upgrade their nuclear arsenals, and nuclear weapons remain integral to their conception of national security.”

    For example, the United States is modifying its existing nuclear warheads while planning production of warheads with new designs. Russia is phasing out its Soviet-era missiles and submarines and deploying newer missiles, as well as additional warheads on its missiles. France is deploying new nuclear missiles on its fighter-bombers and submarines. China is upgrading its missile force, while India and Pakistan are locked in a race to deploy new types of nuclear weapons. Although Israel is the most secretive of the nuclear powers, rumors are afloat that it is equipping some of its submarines with nuclear-capable cruise missiles. North Korea reportedly lacks operational nuclear weapons, but its hungry citizens can take heart that it is working to remedy this deficiency.

    In addition, of course, it is quite possible, in the future, that other nations will develop nuclear weapons, terrorists will obtain such weapons from national stockpiles, or existing nuclear weapons will be exploded or launched accidentally.

    In these very dangerous circumstances, surely the safest course of action would be to have the international community agree on a treaty requiring the destruction of all existing stocks of nuclear weapons and a ban on their future production. Nuclear disarmament discussions along these and other lines have recently been concluded by a UN Open Ended Working Group, and will be continued in late September by a UN High Level Meeting and later this fall by the UN General Assembly First Committee.

    But, to judge from past government behavior, it does not seem likely that disarmament discussions among government officials will get very far without substantial public pressure upon them to cope with the nuclear weapons menace. And it is a menace — one at least as dangerous to the future of world civilization as the existence of chemical weapons. So pressing world leaders for action on nuclear disarmament seems thoroughly appropriate.

    The alternative is to throw up our hands and wait, while power-hungry governments continue to toy with their nuclear weaponry and, ultimately, produce a catastrophe of immense proportions.

    This article was originally published by History News Network.

  • Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

    Below is the link for the full text of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty:

    http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treaty_text.pdf

  • Non-Proliferation Treaty

    The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter referred to as the Parties to the Treaty,

    Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,

    Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war,

    In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,

    Undertaking to co-operate in facilitating the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities,

    Expressing their support for research, development and other efforts to further the application, within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system, of the principle of safeguarding effectively the flow of source and special fissionable materials by use of instruments and other techniques at certain strategic points,

    Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear-weapon States,

    Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in co-operation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

    Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

    Urging the co-operation of all States in the attainment of this objective,

    Recalling the determination expressed by the Parties to the 1963 Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water in its Preamble to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end,

    Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,

    Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources,

    Have agreed as follows:

    Article I

    Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

    Article II

    Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

    Article III

    1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

    2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.

    3. The safeguards required by this Article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.

    4. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall conclude agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet the requirements of this Article either individually or together with other States in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Negotiation of such agreements shall commence within 180 days from the original entry into force of this Treaty. For States depositing their instruments of ratification or accession after the 180-day period, negotiation of such agreements shall commence not later than the date of such deposit. Such agreements shall enter into force not later than eighteen months after the date of initiation of negotiations.

    Article IV

    1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

    2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

    Article V

    Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall be able to obtain such benefits, pursuant to a special international agreement or agreements, through an appropriate international body with adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon States. Negotiations on this subject shall commence as soon as possible after the Treaty enters into force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty so desiring may also obtain such benefits pursuant to bilateral agreements.

    Article VI

    Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

    Article VII

    Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.

    Article VIII

    1. Any Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary Governments which shall circulate it to all Parties to the Treaty. Thereupon, if requested to do so by one-third or more of the Parties to the Treaty, the Depositary Governments shall convene a conference, to which they shall invite all the Parties to the Treaty, to consider such an amendment.

    2. Any amendment to this Treaty must be approved by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to the Treaty, including the votes of all nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, are members of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The amendment shall enter into force for each Party that deposits its instrument of ratification of the amendment upon the deposit of such instruments of ratification by a majority of all the Parties, including the instruments of ratification of all nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, are members of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any other Party upon the deposit of its instrument of ratification of the amendment.

    3. Five years after the entry into force of this Treaty, a conference of Parties to the Treaty shall be held in Geneva, Switzerland, in order to review the operation of this Treaty with a view to assuring that the purposes of the Preamble and the provisions of the Treaty are being realised. At intervals of five years thereafter, a majority of the Parties to the Treaty may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary Governments, the convening of further conferences with the same objective of reviewing the operation of the Treaty.

    Article IX

    1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Treaty before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article may accede to it at any time.

    2. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification and instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, which are hereby designated the Depositary Governments.

    3. This Treaty shall enter into force after its ratification by the States, the Governments of which are designated Depositaries of the Treaty, and forty other States signatory to this Treaty and the deposit of their instruments of ratification. For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967.

    4. For States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited subsequent to the entry into force of this Treaty, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

    5. The Depositary Governments shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or of accession, the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and the date of receipt of any requests for convening a conference or other notices.

    6. This Treaty shall be registered by the Depositary Governments pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

    Article X

    1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

    2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the Treaty.1

    Article XI

    This Treaty, the English, Russian, French, Spanish and Chinese texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Depositary Governments. Duly certified copies of this Treaty shall be transmitted by the Depositary Governments to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, duly authorized, have signed this Treaty.

    DONE in triplicate, at the cities of London, Moscow and Washington, the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight.

  • Buenos Aires Declaration on Nuclear Disarmament

    The Senior Officials of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), having met on August 20, 2013 in the city of Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina, aware of the historical commitment of the Community towards nuclear disarmament, issued the following Declaration:

    1. Highlighted the relevance and full validity of the Special Communiqué on the Complete Elimination of Nuclear Weapons adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the CELAC, on December 3, 2011 in Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  In this context, they reiterated their grave concern at the threat that the ongoing existence of nuclear weapons and their potential use or threat of use poses for mankind.

    2. Highlighted also the full validity of the Declaration of the 33 Member States of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), adopted in September 2011, reaffirming, inter alia, the urgent need to advance towards the primary goal of nuclear disarmament and achieve complete and general elimination of nuclear weapons, and in this regard, agreed to join the efforts of the International Community in making progress towards the negotiation of a universal and legally binding instrument banning nuclear weapons.

    3. Reaffirmed that the region grants the highest priority to the achievement of a complete and verifiable nuclear disarmament and reiterated that the only guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is their complete elimination.

    4. Reiterated that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons constitutes a crime against humanity and a violation of international law, including international humanitarian law, and of the Charter of the United Nations.

    5. Highlighted the importance of active participation by CELAC Member States in drafting concrete proposals to achieve universal nuclear disarmament, in accordance with a multilaterally agreed clear, irreversible, and verifiable timeframe.

    6. Identified as a legitimate interest of non-nuclear-weapon States, which includes all CELAC Member States, the unequivocal and legally binding assurance by nuclear weapon States against the use or threat to use such weapons.  CELAC Member States called for a start to the negotiation and adoption, as soon as possible, of a universal and legally binding instrument on negative security assurances.

    7. Called on all States, in particular Nuclear Weapon States, to eliminate the role of nuclear weapons in their doctrines, military strategies and security policies or as a prospective approach for the management of conflicts in order to achieve the total elimination of this armament regardless of its type or geographical location.

    8. Stressed that the establishment of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones strengthens international peace and security as well as the non-proliferation regime, and is an important contribution to nuclear disarmament.

    9. Expressed Latin America and the Caribbean’s pride in being the first densely populated area in the world to be declared a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ), under the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco). Reaffirmed that the establishment of a NWFZ in the Latin American and Caribbean region has contributed to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as to regional and global peace and security.

    10. Emphasized that the Tlatelolco Treaty and the OPANAL have constituted a political, legal and institutional reference in the establishment of other Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) in different regions of the world. Today OPANAL’s experience, together with that of the other four existing NWFZs and Mongolia as a single State unilaterally declared free of nuclear weapons, constitutes an important heritage of the international community to inspire the establishment of new NWFZs and advance towards the goal of a nuclear weapons free world.

    11. Urged nuclear powers to withdraw all interpretative declarations to the Protocols I and II of the Tlatelolco Treaty that constitute actual reservations prohibited by this Treaty, thus contributing to eliminate the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons against the countries of the region. Expressed their commitment to continue working with those States Parties to the Protocols in order to convince them to withdraw or modify such declarations.

    12. Regretted the failure to implement the agreement on the convening in 2012 of an International Conference for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Reiterated that the convening of this Conference is an important and integral part of the final outcome of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Expressed that the outcomes of this Conference will be an important contribution to achieve the nuclear disarmament goal and reiterated their firm conviction that the establishment of said Zone would represent a significant step towards the peace process in the Middle East region. Urged the convening of this Conference as soon as possible.

    13. Urged Nuclear-Weapon States to fulfill their commitments under Article VI of the NPT, and to advance towards the complete elimination of those weapons.  Urged them to fully and immediately implement the thirteen (13) practical steps towards nuclear disarmament agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, as well as the Plan of Action adopted at the 2010 Review Conference.

    14. Reaffirmed the inalienable right of States to develop research, production and peaceful use of nuclear energy without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I, II, III and IV of the NPT.  Reiterated the commitment of all Parties to the Treaty to facilitate participation in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

    15. Expressed their total rejection to the enhancement of existing nuclear weapons and the development of new types of nuclear weapons, which is inconsistent with the obligation of complete nuclear disarmament.

    16. Called on all States to refrain from nuclear weapon test explosions, other nuclear explosions or any other relevant non-explosive experiments, including subcritical experiments, for nuclear weapons development purposes. Such actions are contrary to the object and purpose of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), its spirit, if not the letter, undermining its desired impact as a nuclear disarmament measure.

    17. Reiterated the demand for a comprehensive nuclear test ban and urged those States in Annex II whose ratification are essential for the entry into force of the CTBT to accelerate the process of signing and/or ratifying this instrument, as a matter of priority and an indication of their political will and commitment to international peace and security.

    18. Reaffirmed the importance of initiating negotiations for an international legally binding instrument banning nuclear weapons and commitment towards this primary goal.

    19. Recalled that the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament (SSOD-I) established the Conference on Disarmament (CD) as the single multilateral negotiating body on disarmament. Urged the CD to demonstrate the necessary political will in order to ensure the commencement without delay of substantive work through the adoption and implementation of a balanced and comprehensive program of work that advances the agenda of nuclear disarmament.

    20. Recognized the work of the Open-ended Working Group established by Resolution A/RES/67/56 of the United Nations General Assembly, with the mandate to put forward proposals to foster multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament, as well as the proposals and contributions made in this Group by the CELAC Member Countries.

    21. Reiterated the firm commitment of the CELAC to work on convening an International High-Level Conference as soon as possible to identify ways and methods to eliminate nuclear weapons, aimed at agreeing on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specific timeframe.  This program would ban the development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and stipulate their destruction.

    22. Emphasized the intention of CELAC Member States to actively participate in the High-Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament to be held in New York on September 26, 2013, as well as in the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to be held in New York in 2014.

    23. Expressed their greatest concern at the humanitarian impact of vast proportions and global effects of any accidental or intentional nuclear detonation. Called upon the International Community to reiterate its concern on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons whenever the debate on this type of weapons takes place. Welcomed the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, held in March 2013, and, in this regard, called all States to participate in the Second International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons to be held in Mexico, on February 13-14, 2014.

    24. Agreed to continue coordinating positions and contributing to the implementation of practical actions as a follow-up to the above mentioned High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly, including the adoption of a resolution on the matter in the First Committee, during the 68th regular session of the United Nations General Assembly.

    25. Agreed to distribute this Declaration as an official document of the High-Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament and as an official document of the OPANAL General Conference.

    26. Expressed appreciation to the Government and People of the Republic of Argentina for the warm hospitality and the successful organization of the Meeting.

  • Declaración de la CELAC sobre Desarme Nuclear

    Los Altos Funcionarios de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC), reunidos el 20 de agosto en la ciudad de Buenos Aires, República Argentina,  conscientes del  compromiso histórico de la Comunidad con el desarme nuclear,  emitieron la siguiente Declaración:

    1.    Destacaron la relevancia y plena vigencia del Comunicado Especial sobre la Eliminación Total de las Armas Nucleares, adoptado  por los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de la CELAC, el 3 de diciembre de 2011, en Caracas, República Bolivariana de Venezuela. En ese contexto, reiteraron su profunda preocupación ante la amenaza contra la humanidad que representa la continua existencia de armas nucleares y su posible uso o amenaza de uso.

    2.    Enfatizaron la plena vigencia de la Declaración de los 33 Estados Miembros del OPANAL, aprobada en septiembre de 2011, en la cual, entre otras cosas, reafirmaron la necesidad urgente de avanzar hacia el objetivo prioritario del desarme nuclear y de lograr la eliminación total y general de las armas nucleares, y en ese sentido, acordaron sumarse a los esfuerzos de la comunidad internacional para avanzar hacia la negociación de un instrumento universal jurídicamente vinculante que prohíba las armas nucleares.

    3.    Reafirmaron que la región confiere la más alta prioridad a alcanzar el desarme nuclear, completo y verificable, y reiteraron que la única garantía contra el empleo o la amenaza del uso de las armas nucleares, es su total eliminación.

    4.    Reiteraron que el uso o amenaza de uso de armas nucleares constituye un crimen contra la humanidad y una violación al derecho internacional,  incluido el derecho internacional humanitario, y la Carta de Naciones Unidas.

    5.    Subrayaron la importancia de la activa participación de los Estados miembros de la CELAC en la elaboración de propuestas concretas para alcanzar el desarme nuclear universal, de acuerdo con un cronograma multilateralmente acordado, transparente, irreversible y verificable.

    6.    Identificaron como  un interés legítimo de los Estados no poseedores de armas nucleares, entre los que se incluyen todos los miembros de la CELAC,  que los Estados poseedores de armas nucleares brinden garantías inequívocas y jurídicamente vinculantes de no usar ni amenazar con el uso de esas armas. Los Estados Miembros de la CELAC instaron a trabajar en la negociación y adopción, en el plazo más breve posible, de un instrumento universal jurídicamente vinculante en materia de garantías negativas de seguridad.

    7.    Llamaron a todos los Estados, particularmente a los Estados poseedores de armas nucleares a eliminar la función de las armas nucleares en sus doctrinas, políticas de seguridad y estrategias militares, o como un enfoque prospectivo para el manejo de conflictos, con el fin de alcanzar la total eliminación de este armamento independientemente de su tipo o ubicación geográfica.

    8.    Destacaron que el establecimiento de Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares fortalecen la paz y la seguridad internacional y regional, así como el régimen de no proliferación, siendo una importante contribución para lograr el desarme nuclear.

    9.    Expresaron el orgullo de América Latina y el Caribe por ser la primera área densamente poblada en el mundo que se declaró como Zona Libre de Armas Nucleares (ZLAN), por medio del Tratado para la Proscripción de las Armas Nucleares en la América Latina y el Caribe (Tratado de Tlatelolco). Reafirmaron que la creación de una ZLAN en la región de América Latina y el Caribe, ha contribuido con el desarme y la no proliferación nuclear, así como con la paz y la seguridad regional y global.

    10.    Destacaron que el Tratado de Tlatelolco y el Organismo para la Proscripción de las Armas Nucleares en la América Latina y el Caribe (OPANAL) han sido un referente político, jurídico e institucional en la creación de otras Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares (ZLANs) en diferentes regiones del mundo. La experiencia del OPANAL constituye hoy, junto a las otras cuatro ZLANs existentes y Mongolia como Estado declarado unilateralmente libre de armas nucleares, un importante patrimonio de la comunidad internacional para inspirar la creación de nuevas ZLANs para avanzar hacia el objetivo de un mundo libre de armas nucleares.

    11.    Instaron a las potencias nucleares a que retiren las declaraciones interpretativas a los Protocolos I y II del Tratado de Tlatelolco, que constituyen verdaderas reservas prohibidas por el Tratado, contribuyendo así a eliminar la posibilidad del uso de armas nucleares contra los países de la región. Expresaron su compromiso de continuar trabajando con los Estados Parte en los Protocolos a fin de lograr el retiro o la adecuación de esas declaraciones.

    12.    Lamentaron el incumplimiento del acuerdo sobre la celebración en 2012 de la Conferencia Internacional para el establecimiento en el Medio Oriente de una Zona Libre de Armas Nucleares y otras Armas de Destrucción Masiva. Reiteraron que la celebración de esta Conferencia es parte importante e integral del resultado final de la Conferencia de Revisión del Tratado de No Proliferación de las Armas Nucleares (TNP) de 2010. Expresaron que los acuerdos que resulten de esta Conferencia serán una contribución importante para alcanzar el objetivo del desarme nuclear, y reiteraron su  firme convencimiento de que el establecimiento de dicha Zona significaría un paso trascendental para el proceso de paz en la región del Medio Oriente. Instaron  a que esta Conferencia se efectúe Io más pronto posible.

    13.    Urgieron a los Estados poseedores de armas nucleares a cumplir con sus compromisos asumidos en virtud del Artículo VI del TNP y avanzar hacia la eliminación total de esas armas. Los instaron a la plena e inmediata aplicación de las 13 medidas prácticas hacia el desarme nuclear acordadas en la Conferencia de Examen del TNP del año 2000, así como el Plan de Acción aprobado en la Conferencia de Examen de 2010.

    14.    Reafirmaron el derecho inalienable de los Estados a desarrollar la investigación, la producción y el uso pacífico de la energía nuclear sin discriminación y de conformidad con los Artículos I, II, III y IV del TNP. Reiteraron el compromiso de todas las Partes del Tratado de facilitar la participación en el intercambio más completo posible de equipos, materiales e información científica y tecnológica para el uso pacífico de la energía nuclear.

    15.    Expresaron su total rechazo al perfeccionamiento de las armas nucleares existentes y al desarrollo de nuevos tipos de esas armas, lo que es inconsistente con la obligación de un completo desarme nuclear.

    16.    Llamaron a todos los Estados a que se abstengan de efectuar explosiones de prueba de armas nucleares, otras explosiones nucleares o cualquier otro experimento no explosivo relevante, incluyendo experimentos subcríticos, para fines de desarrollo de armas nucleares. Estas acciones son contrarias al objeto y propósito del Tratado de Prohibición Completa de los Ensayos Nucleares (CTBT), su espíritu, si no la letra, socavando su impacto deseado como una medida de desarme nuclear.

    17.    Reiteraron la exigencia de que se prohíban completamente los ensayos nucleares de todo tipo e instaron a los Estados del anexo II, cuya ratificación es imprescindible para la entrada en vigor del CTBT, a que aceleren su proceso de firma y/o ratificación de dicho instrumento, como una cuestión prioritaria, y una muestra de su voluntad política y de su compromiso con la paz y la seguridad internacionales.

    18.    Reafirmaron la importancia de que se inicien las negociaciones para un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante que prohíba las armas nucleares y su compromiso en favor de este objetivo prioritario.

    19.    Recordaron que la Primera Sesión Extraordinaria de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas dedicada al Desarme (SSOD-I) estableció la Conferencia de Desarme (CD) como único órgano de negociación multilateral de desarme. Instaron a la CD a demostrar la voluntad política necesaria para asegurar el inicio sin más demora de labores sustantivas a través de la adopción e implementación de un programa de trabajo equilibrado e integral que avance la agenda de desarme nuclear.

    20.    Reconocieron la labor del Grupo de Trabajo de Composición Abierta creado por la Resolución A/RES/67/56 de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, con el mandato de elaborar propuestas para hacer avanzar las negociaciones multilaterales de desarme nuclear, así como las propuestas y contribuciones presentadas en ese Grupo por Estados  miembros de la CELAC

    21.    Reiteraron el firme compromiso de la CELAC de trabajar en la convocatoria de una Conferencia Internacional de Alto Nivel para identificar las vías y métodos de eliminar las armas nucleares en el plazo más corto posible, con el objetivo de acordar un programa por fases para la eliminación completa de las armas nucleares en un período de tiempo específico, que prohíba su desarrollo, producción, adquisición, prueba, almacenamiento, transferencia, uso o amenaza del uso, y estipular su destrucción.

    22.    Enfatizaron la intención de los Estados Miembros de la CELAC de participar de manera activa en la Reunión de Alto Nivel de la Asamblea General de la ONU sobre Desarme Nuclear, que tendrá lugar en Nueva York, el 26 de septiembre de 2013, así como en la Tercera Sesión  del Comité  Preparatorio de la Conferencia de Examen  del Tratado de No Proliferación de Armas Nucleares, a realizarse en Nueva York el año 2014.

    23.    Expresaron su más alta preocupación por las consecuencias humanitarias de enormes proporciones y los efectos globales de cualquier detonación nuclear accidental o intencional. Exhortaron a la comunidad internacional a reiterar su preocupación sobre las consecuencias humanitarias de las armas nucleares, donde sea que se lleve a cabo el debate sobre este tipo de armas. Dieron la bienvenida a los resultados de la Conferencia de Oslo sobre el Impacto Humanitario de las Armas Nucleares, celebrada en marzo de 2013 y, en este sentido, hicieron un llamado a todos los Estados a participar en la segunda Conferencia Internacional sobre el Impacto Humanitario de las Armas Nucleares que se celebrará en México, los días 13 y 14 de febrero de 2014.

    24.    Acordaron continuar coordinando posiciones y contribuir a la implementación de acciones prácticas en  seguimiento a la mencionada Reunión de Alto Nivel de la Asamblea General, incluyendo la adopción de una resolución sobre el tema en la Primera Comisión durante el 68 período ordinario de sesiones de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas.

    25.    Acordaron distribuir la presente Declaración como documento oficial de la Reunión de Alto Nivel de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas sobre Desarme Nuclear y como documento oficial de la Conferencia General del OPANAL.

    26.    Agradecieron al Gobierno y al Pueblo de la República Argentina por la cálida hospitalidad y la exitosa organización de la Reunión.

  • Protecting Whistleblowers

    The world urgently needs a system of international laws for protecting whistleblowers. There are many reasons for this, but among the most urgent is the need for saving civilization and the biosphere from the threat of a catastrophic nuclear war.

    It is generally recognized that a war fought with nuclear weapons would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster, affecting neutral nations throughout the world, as well as combatants. For example, on 4-5 March 2013 the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Espen Barth Eide hosted an international Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons.

    The Conference provided an arena for a fact-based discussion of the humanitarian and developmental consequences of a nuclear weapons detonation. Delegates from 127 countries as well as several UN organisations, the International Red Cross movement, representatives of civil society and other relevant stakeholders participated.

    The Austrian representatives to the Oslo Conference commented that “Austria is convinced that it is necessary and overdue to put the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at the center of our debate, including in the NPT. Nuclear weapons are not just a security policy issue for a few states but an issue of serious concern for the entire international community. The humanitarian, environmental, health, economic and developmental consequences of any nuclear weapons explosion would be devastating and global and any notion of adequate preparedness or response is an illusion.”

    China stated that “China has always stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, and [has] actively promoted the establishment of a world free of nuclear weapons. The complete prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons, getting rid of the danger of nuclear war and the attainment of a nuclear-weapon-free world, serve the common interests and benefits of humankind.”

    Japan’s comment included the words: “As the only country to have suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan actively contributed to the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in March. With strengthened resolve to seek a nuclear-weapons-free world, we continue to advance disarmament and non-proliferation education to inform the world and the next generation of the dreadful realities of nuclear devastation.” Many other nations represented at the Oslo Conference made similarly strong statements advocating the complete abolition of nuclear weapons.

    Recently UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has introduced a 5-point Program for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In this program he mentioned the possibility of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and urged the Security Council to convene a summit devoted to the nuclear abolition. He also urged all countries to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty.

    Three-quarters of all nations support UN Secretary-General Ban’s proposal for a treaty to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons. The 146 nations that have declared their willingness to negotiate a new global disarmament pact include four nuclear weapon states: China, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

    Nuclear disarmament has been one of the core aspirations of the international community since the first use of nuclear weapons in 1945. A nuclear war, even a limited one, would have global humanitarian and environmental consequences, and thus it is a responsibility of all governments,including those of non-nuclear countries, to protect their citizens and engage in processes leading to a world without nuclear weapons.

    Now a new process has been established by the United Nations General Assembly, an Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) to Take Forward Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations. The OEWG convened at the UN offices in Geneva on May 14, 2013. Among the topics discussed was a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention.

    The Model Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibits development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. States possessing nuclear weapons will be required to destroy their arsenals according to a series of phases.

    The Convention also prohibits the production of weapons usable fissile material and requires delivery vehicles to be destroyed or converted to make them non-nuclear capable.

    Verification will include declarations and reports from States, routine inspections, challenge inspections, on-site sensors, satellite photography, radionuclide sampling and other remote sensors, information sharing with other organizations, and citizen reporting. Persons reporting suspected violations of the convention will be provided protection through the Convention including the right of asylum.

    Thus we can see that the protection of whistleblowers is an integral feature of the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention now being discussed. As Sir Joseph Rotblat (1908-2005, Nobel Laureate 1995) frequently emphasized in his speeches, societal verification must be an integral part of the process of “going to zero” ( i.e, the total elimination of nuclear weapons). This is because nuclear weapons are small enough to be easily hidden. How will we know whether a nation has destroyed all of its nuclear arsenal? We have to depend on information from insiders, whose loyalty to the whole of humanity promts them to become whistleblowers. And for this to be possible, they need to be protected.

    In general, if the world is ever to be free from the threat of complete destruction by modern weapons, we will need a new global ethic, an ethic as advanced as our technology. Of course we can continue to be loyal to our families, our localities and our countries. But this must be suplemented by a higher loyalty: a loyalty to humanity as a whole.

    John Avery is a leader in the Pugwash movement in Denmark.

  • Nuclear Abolition: New Opportunities and Old Obstacles

    At the end of last year, the airwaves and internet were filled with chatter about the ancient Mayan calendar which was predicting the end of the world or a similar catastrophe.  Some scholars argued that the Mayan prophecy related not to an impending disaster but to the end of a 5000 year cycle which would usher in a period of new consciousness and transformation.  While our planet seems to have dodged a bullet and survived the more gloomy interpretations of the ancient prophecy,  the Mayans may have been on to something as it appears we are actually seeing the breakup of a certain kind of world consciousness  regarding nuclear weapons this year and it’s all for the good.

    New initiatives for nuclear disarmament are springing up in both conventional and unconventional forums.   Norway stepped up to the plate in February and convened an unprecedented international meeting to address the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.  In Oslo, 127 nations, plus UN agencies, NGOs, and the International Red Cross participated in a debate and discussion of the catastrophic potential of nuclear weapons.  Two nuclear weapons states, India and Pakistan attended.

    The five recognized nuclear weapons states under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, who also happen to wield the veto as permanent members of the Security Council (the P5) the US, UK, Russia, China and France, refused to attend.  They spoke in one voice, as I learned on a conference call with Rose Gottemoeller, US Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, who told us that the US decision not to attend the conference “was made in consultation with the P5. They all agreed not to attend” because “Oslo would divert discussion and energy from a practical step by step approach and non-proliferation work.  The most effective way to honor the NPT.”  Other P5 spokespeople characterized the Oslo initiative as a “distraction.” Of course it was a distraction from the P5 preferred methods of business as usual in the ossified and stalled NPT process, as well as in the procedurally stymied Conference on Disarmament in Geneva which has been paralyzed for 17 years because of lack of consensus,  required by its rules to move forward on disarmament agreements—a recipe for nuclear weapons forever—with regular new breakout threats by nuclear proliferators.

    Oslo was an end run around those institutions. Taking its model from the Ottawa Process that wound up with a treaty to ban landmines, working outside of the usual institutional fora, it held an electrifying new kind of discussion as testimony was heard about the devastating impacts of what would occur during a nuclear war and the humanitarian consequences, examining the need to ban the bomb.  Prior to the Oslo meeting, more than 500 members of ICAN, a vibrant new campaign, met to work for negotiations to begin on a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons. At Oslo, the nations pledged to follow up with another meeting in Mexico.

    Right before Oslo, The Middle Powers Initiative, working to influence friendly middle powers to put pressure on the P5 for more rapid progress for nuclear disarmament, held a Framework Forum for a Nuclear Weapons Free World in Berlin, hosted by the German government, under the new leadership of Tad Akiba, former Mayor of Hiroshima who oversaw the burgeoning Mayors for Peace Campaign grow to a network of some 5300 mayors in more than 150 countries calling for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  At that meeting, we were urged to organize Civil Society’s support for a new initiative promoted by the UN General Assembly’s First Committee establishment of a Geneva Working Group to meet for three weeks this summer to “develop proposals for taking forward multilateral negotiations on the achievement and maintenance of a world free of nuclear weapons.” And then in New York this September, for the first time ever, Heads of State will meet at a global summit devoted to nuclear disarmament!

    Furthermore, thanks to the tireless organizing of the Parliamentarians for Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament,, nearly 1000 parliamentarians from approximately 150 parliaments, meeting at  the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) in Ecuador last month chose the topic “Towards a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World: The Contribution of Parliaments”  as a focus this year under their Peace and International Security work.  IPU, which includes most of the nuclear weapons states in its 160 parliaments enables parliamentarians to engage on core issues for humanity.   That they chose the issue of nuclear weapons ahead of seven other proposals indicates the rising interest and consciousness for nuclear abolition around the world.

    And just before this meeting, Abolition 2000, the global network formed in 1995, at the NPT Review and Extension Conference, which produced a model nuclear weapons convention, now  promoted by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in his five point proposal for nuclear disarmament,  held its annual meeting in Edinburg Scotland, supported by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which is urging that after the referendum on Scottish independence from England, that England’s Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane be closed, and that Scotland no longer house the British nuclear arsenal.  The network joined with Scottish activists at Glasgow and Faslane supporting their call to “Scrap Trident: Let Scotland lead the way to a nuclear free world.”

    Despite these welcome harbingers of a change in planetary consciousness in favor of nuclear abolition, we cannot ignore recent obstacles, setbacks and hardened positions in the old patriarchal and warlike paradigm. Disappointingly the Obama administration is proposing deep cuts in funding for nuclear non-proliferation programs so it can boost spending to modernize its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons adding another $500 million to the already bloated weapons budget, which includes spending for three new bomb factories at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Kansas City with programs for weapons modernization and new missiles, planes and submarines to deliver a nuclear attack which will come to more than $184 billion over the next ten years.

    In the provocative US military “pivot” to Asia, war games with South Korea for the first time simulated a nuclear attack where the US flew stealth bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons over South Korea and sent two guided-missile destroyers off the coast of South Korea, announcing plans to deploy an advanced missile defense system to Guam in the next few weeks two years ahead of schedule.

    This engendered an aggressive response from North Korea which moved a medium-range missile to its east coast and threatened to launch a nuclear attack on the US.  The US put a pause on what it had called its step-by-step plan that laid out the sequence and publicity plans for US shows of force during annual war games with South Korea.  But ominously, the New York Times reported on April 4, 2013, that the US and South Korea “are entering the final stretch of long-stalled negotiations over another highly delicate nuclear issue: South Korea’s own request for American permission to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. Which raises another key obstacle to the surge of sentiment for moving boldly towards nuclear disarmament.
    How can we tell Iran not to enrich uranium when we are negotiating that issue with South Korea as well as with Saudi Arabia?

    If we are serious about nuclear abolition we cannot keep spreading nuclear bomb factories around the world in the form of “peaceful” nuclear power. That is why this new negotiating possibilities outside the NPT are so promising. In order to ban nuclear weapons we are not bound to provide an “inalienable right” to so-called “peaceful nuclear power, as guaranteed by the Article IV promise of the NPT.

    The tragic events at Fukushima, have caused a time-out in the so-called nuclear renaissance that expected a massive increase of nuclear power worldwide.  Just last week, we learned that all of Fukushima’s holding ponds for the toxic radiated water that is used to prevent a meltdown of the stored radioactive fuel rods by cooling them with a constant flow of water, the radioactive trash produced by the operation of nuclear power plants, are all leaking into the earth. We have not yet absorbed the full catastrophic consequences of Fukushima which is still perilously poised to spew more poisons into the air, water and soil; poisons which are traveling around the world. And as the Japanese people rose up to develop plans to phase out nuclear power, members of the Japanese military, acknowledging the significance of nuclear plants as military technology, succeeded in getting the parliament to amend Japan’s 1955 Atomic Energy Basic Law last year, adding “national security” to people’s health and wealth as reasons for Japan’s use of the nuclear power.

    We were warned from the beginning of the atomic age that nuclear power was a recipe for proliferation. President Truman’s 1946 Acheson-Lilienthal Report on policy for the future of nuclear weapons, concluded that “the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the development of atomic energy for bombs are in much of their course interchangeable and interdependent” and that only central control by a global authority controlling all nuclear materials, starting at uranium mines could block the proliferation of nuclear weapons.[i] Nevertheless, President Eisenhower, seeking to counter public revulsion at the normalization of nuclear war in US military policy, was advised by the Defense Department’s Psychological Strategy Board that “the atomic bomb will be accepted far more readily if at the same time atomic energy is being used for constructive ends.”[ii]  Hence his Atoms for Peace speech at the UN in 1953, in which he promised that the US would devote “its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life” [iii] by spreading the peaceful benefits of atomic power across the globe.

    The fallout from the 1954 Bravo test of a hydrogen bomb contaminating 236 Marshall Islanders and 23 Japanese fisherman aboard the Lucky Dragon and irradiating tuna sold in Japan resulted in an eruption of rage against the atomic bombings which were forbidden to be discussed after 1945 by a ban instituted by US occupation authorities.  For damage control, the US NSC recommended that the US wage a “vigorous offensive on the non-war uses of atomic energy,” offering to build Japan an experimental nuclear reactor and recruiting a former Japanese war criminal, Shoriki Matsutaro, who ran the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper and Nippon TV network to shill for nuclear power by getting him released from prison without trial. The benefits of nuclear power were aggressively marketed as miraculous technology that would power vehicles, light cities, heal the sick.  The US made agreements with 37 nations to build atomic reactors and enticed reluctant Westinghouse and General Electric to do so by passing the Price Anderson act limiting their liability at tax-payer expense. Today there is a cap of $12 billion for damages from a nuclear accident. Chernobyl cost $350 billion and Fukushima estimates are as high as one trillion dollars.[iv]

    Ironically, Barack Obama is still peddling the same snake oil. During the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit,  designed to lock down and safeguard nuclear materials worldwide, Obama extolled the peaceful benefits of nuclear power while urging “ nations to join us in seeking a future where we harness the awesome power of the atom to build and not to destroy. When we enhance nuclear security, we’re in a stronger position to harness safe, clean nuclear energy. When we develop new, safer approaches to nuclear energy, we reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism and proliferation.”

    The Good News:  We don’t need nuclear power with all its potential for nuclear proliferation

    Following Fukushima, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Japan have announced their intention to phase out nuclear power.

    • Kuwait pulled out of a contract to build 4 reactors.
    • Venezuela froze all nuclear development projects.
    • Mexico dropped plans to build 10 reactors.[v]
    • Bulgaria and the Philipines also dropped plans to build new reactors.
    • Quebec will shut down its one reactor.
    • Spain is closing down another.
    • Belgium shut down two reactors because of cracks.

    New research and reports are affirming the possibilities for shifting the global energy paradigm. Scientific American reported a plan in 2009 to power 100% of the planet by 2030 with only solar, wind and water renewables.

    The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) also issued a 2010 Report 100% Renewable Energy by 2050.[vi]

    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the world could meet 80% of its energy needs from renewables by 2050.

    In 2009 the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), was launched and now has 187 member states.[vii]

    We mustn’t buy into the propaganda that clean safe energy is decades away or too costly. We need to be vigilant in providing the ample evidence in its favor to counter the corporate forces arguing that it’s not ready, it’s years away, its’ too expensive—arguments made by companies in the business of producing dirty fuel.

    Here’s what Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to say about similar forces in 1936

    We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.[viii]

    These are the enormous forces we must overcome.  The eco-philosopher Joanna Macy, describes these times as ”the great turning”.  In shifting the energy paradigm we would essentially be turning away from “the industrial growth society to a life-sustaining civilization”, foregoing a failed economic model which “ measures its performance in terms of ever-increasing corporate profits–in other words by how fast materials can be extracted from Earth and turned into consumer products, weapons, and waste.”[ix]  Relying on the inexhaustible abundance of the sun, wind, tides, and heat of the earth for our energy needs, freely available to all, will diminish the competitive, industrial, consumer society that is threatening our planetary survival.  By ending our dependence on the old structures, beginning with the compelling urgency to transform the way we meet our energy needs, we may finally be able to put an end to war as well.

     

     

    [i] http://www.nci.org/06nci/10/Acheson-Lilienthal%20report%20excerpt.htm

    [ii] www.japanfocus.org/-yuki-tanaka/3521#

    [iii] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1439606/Atoms-for-Peace-speech

    [iv] www.japanfocus.org/-yuki-tanaka/3521#

    [v] http://progressive.org/fukushima_nuclear_industry.html

    [vi] http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/energy-report.html

    [vii] http://www.irena.org/Menu/Index.aspx?mnu=Cat&PriMenuID=46&CatID=67

    [viii] http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/speeches/spe_1936_1031_roosevelt

    [ix] http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/great-turning

     

     

     

    Alice Slater is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s New York Representative.