Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: Ban Treaty

  • Democracy Breaks Out at the UN as 122 Nations Vote to Ban the Bomb

    This article was originally published by The Nation.

    On July 7, 2017, at a UN Conference mandated by the UN General Assembly to negotiate a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, the only weapons of mass destruction yet to be banned, 122 nations completed the job after three weeks, accompanied by a celebratory outburst of cheers, tears, and applause among hundreds of activists, government delegates, and experts, as well as survivors of the lethal nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and witnesses to the devastating, toxic nuclear-test explosions in the Pacific. The new treaty outlaws any prohibited activities related to nuclear weapons, including use, threat to use, development, testing, production, manufacturing, acquiring, possession, stockpiling, transferring, receiving, stationing, installation, and deployment of nuclear weapons. It also bans states from lending assistance, which includes such prohibited acts as financing for their development and manufacture, engaging in military preparations and planning, and permitting the transit of nuclear weapons through territorial water or airspace.

    We are witnessing a striking shift in the global paradigm of how the world views nuclear weapons, bringing us to this glorious moment. The change has transformed public conversation about nuclear weapons, from the same old, same old talk about national “security” and its reliance on “nuclear deterrence” to the widely publicized evidence of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. A series of compelling presentations of the devastating effects of nuclear catastrophe, organized by enlightened governments and civil society’s International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, was inspired by a stunning statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross addressing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.

    At meetings hosted by Norway, Mexico, and Austria, overwhelming evidence demonstrated the disastrous devastation threatening humanity from nuclear weapons—their mining, milling, production, testing, and use—whether deliberately or by accident or negligence. This new knowledge, exposing the terrifying havoc that would be inflicted on our planet, gave impetus for this moment when governments and civil society fulfilled a negotiating mandate for a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.

    Perhaps the most significant addition to the treaty, after a draft treaty from an earlier week of talks in March was submitted to the states by the expert and determined president of the conference, Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gómez of Costa Rica, was amending the prohibition not to use nuclear weapons by adding the words “or threaten to use,” driving a stake through the heart of the beloved “deterrence” doctrine of the nuclear-weapons states, which are holding the whole world hostage to their perceived “security” needs, threatening the earth with nuclear annihilation in their MAD scheme for “Mutually Assured Destruction.” The ban also creates a path for nuclear states to join the treaty, requiring verifiable, time-bound, transparent elimination of all nuclear-weapons programs or irreversible conversion of all nuclear-weapons related facilities.

    The negotiations were boycotted by all nine nuclear-weapons states and US allies under its nuclear “umbrella” in NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The Netherlands was the only NATO member present, its parliament having required its attendance in response to public pressure, and was the only “no” vote against the treaty. Last summer, after a UN Working Group recommended that the General Assembly resolve to establish the ban-treaty negotiations, the United States pressured its NATO allies, arguing that “the effects of a ban could be wide-ranging and degrade enduring security relationships.” Upon the adoption of the ban treaty, the United States, United Kingdom, and France issued a statement that “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it” as it “does not address the security concerns that continue to make nuclear deterrence necessary” and will create “even more divisions at a time…of growing threats, including those from the DPRK’s ongoing proliferation efforts.” Ironically, North Korea was the only nuclear power to vote for the ban treaty, last October, when the UN’s First Committee for Disarmament forwarded a resolution for ban-treaty negotiations to the General Assembly.

    Yet the absence of the nuclear-weapons states contributed to a more democratic process, with fruitful interchanges between experts and witnesses from civil society who were present and engaged through much of the proceedings instead of being outside locked doors, as is usual when the nuclear powers are negotiating their endless step-by-step process that has only resulted in leaner, meaner, nuclear weapons, constantly modernized, designed, refurbished. Obama, before he left office was planning to spend one trillion dollars over the next 30 years for two new bomb factories, new warheads and delivery systems. We still await Trump’s plans for the US nuclear-weapons program.

    The Ban Treaty affirms the states’ determination to realize the purpose of the Charter of the United Nations and reminds us that the very first resolution of the UN in 1946 called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. With no state holding veto power, and no hidebound rules of consensus that have stalled all progress on nuclear abolition and additional initiatives for world peace in other UN and treaty bodies, this negotiation was a gift from the UN General Assembly, which democratically requires states to be represented in negotiations with an equal vote and doesn’t require consensus to come to a decision.

    Despite the recalcitrance of the nuclear-deterrence-mongers, we know that previous treaties banning weapons have changed international norms and stigmatized the weapons leading to policy revisions even in states that never signed those treaties. The Ban Treaty requires 50 states to sign and ratify it before it enters into force, and will be open for signature September 20 when heads of state meet in New York for the UN General Assembly’s opening session. Campaigners will be working to gather the necessary ratifications and now that nuclear weapons are unlawful and banned, to shame those NATO states which keep US nuclear weapons on their territory (Belgium, Germany , Turkey, Netherlands, Italy) and pressure other alliance states which hypocritically condemn nuclear weapons but participate in nuclear-war planning. In the nuclear-weapons states, there can be divestment campaigns from institutions that support the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons now that they have been prohibited and declared unlawful. See www.dontbankonthebomb.com

    To keep the momentum going in this burgeoning movement to ban the bomb, check out www.icanw.org. For a more detailed roadmap of what lies ahead, see Zia Mian’s take on future possibilities in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

  • U.S., UK and France Denounce Nuclear Ban Treaty

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    The U.S., UK and France have never shown enthusiasm for banning and eliminating nuclear weapons. It is not surprising, therefore, that they did not participate in the United Nations negotiations leading to the recent adoption of the nuclear ban treaty, or that they joined together in expressing their outright defiance of the newly-adopted treaty.

    In a joint press statement, issued on July 7, 2017, the day the treaty was adopted, the U.S., UK and France stated, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.” Seriously? Rather than supporting the countries that came together and hammered out the treaty, the three countries argued: “This initiative clearly disregards the realities of the international security environment.”  Rather than taking a leadership role in the negotiations, they protested the talks and the resulting treaty banning nuclear weapons. They chose hubris over wisdom, might over right.

    They based their opposition on their belief that the treaty is “incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has been essential to keeping the peace in Europe and North Asia for over 70 years.” Others would take issue with their conclusion, arguing that, in addition to overlooking the Korean War and other smaller wars, the peace in Europe and North Asia has been kept not because of nuclear deterrence but in spite of it.

    The occasions on which nuclear deterrence has come close to failure, including during the Cuban missile crisis, are well known. The absolute belief of the U.S., UK and France in nuclear deterrence seems more theological than practical.

    The three countries point out, “This treaty offers no solution to the grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program, nor does it address other security challenges that make nuclear deterrence necessary.” But for the countries that adopted the nuclear ban treaty, North Korea is only one of nine countries that are undermining international security by basing their national security on nuclear weapons. For countries so committed to nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, is it not surprising and hypocritical that they view North Korea’s nuclear arsenal not in the light of deterrence, but rather, as an aggressive force?

    The three countries reiterate their commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but do not mention their own obligation under that treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. The negotiations for the new nuclear ban treaty are based on fulfilling those obligations. The three countries chose not to participate in these negotiations, in defiance of their NPT obligations, making their joint statement appear self-serving and based upon magical thinking.

    If the U.S., UK and France were truly interested in promoting “international peace, stability and security” as they claim, they would be seeking all available avenues to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, rather than planning to modernize and enhance their own nuclear arsenals over the coming decades.

    These three nuclear-armed countries, as well as the other six nuclear-armed countries, continue to rely upon the false idol of nuclear weapons, justified by nuclear deterrence. In doing so, they continue to run the risk of destroying civilization, or worse. The 122 nations that adopted the nuclear ban treaty, on the other hand, acted on behalf of every citizen of the world who values the future of humanity and our planet, and should be commended for what they have accomplished.

    The new treaty will open for signatures in September 2017, and will enter into force when 50 countries have acceded to it. It provides an alternative vision for the human future, one in which nuclear weapons are seen for the threat they pose to all humanity, one in which nuclear possessors will be stigmatized for the threats they pose to all life. Despite the resistance of the U.S., UK and France, the nuclear ban treaty marks the beginning of the end of the nuclear age.

  • Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons Adopted

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    For Immediate Release                                                      

    Contact:

    Sandy Jones: (805) 965-3443; sjones@napf.org
    Rick Wayman: (805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org

     

    Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons Adopted

    Negotiations conclude at United Nations. Treaty will open for signature in September.

    New York–More than 120 countries gathered at the United Nations and today formally adopted the “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,” a treaty that categorically prohibits the possession, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Non-governmental organizations played a key role in the negotiations leading up to the nuclear ban treaty.

    Considered an historic step toward creating a safer and more secure world, the treaty expresses in its preamble deep concern “about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons.” It further recognizes “the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances.”

    The treaty is a clear indication that the majority of the world’s countries no longer accept nuclear weapons and do not consider them legitimate. It demonstrates that the indiscriminate mass killing of civilians is unacceptable and that it is not possible to use nuclear weapons consistent with the laws of war.

    David Krieger, President of the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), commented, “This is an exciting day for those of us who have worked for a world free of nuclear weapons and an important day for the world. The majority of the world’s nations have agreed upon a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons and will open this new treaty for signatures in September. What this represents is humanity finally standing up for sanity and its own survival 72 years into the Nuclear Age.”

    While the United States chose to boycott the negotiations, their repeated objections demonstrate that this treaty has the potential to significantly impact U.S. behavior regarding nuclear weapons issues. Previous weapon prohibition treaties, including the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, have demonstrated that changing international norms leads to concrete changes in policies and behaviors, even in states not party to the treaty.

    The treaty also creates obligations to support the victims of nuclear weapons use and testing and to remediate the environmental damage caused by nuclear weapons.

    This effort to ban nuclear weapons has been led by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which is made up of over 400 non-governmental organizations from 100 countries. The movement has benefitted from the broad support of international humanitarian, environmental, nonproliferation, and disarmament organizations that have joined forces throughout the world. Significant political and grassroots organizing has taken place, and many thousands have signed petitions, joined protests, contacted representatives, and pressured governments.

    Rick Wayman, Director of Programs at NAPF, said, “This treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons is truly a joint effort between the majority of the world’s countries and many dedicated non-governmental organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.”

    Wayman presented a final statement and a working paper on behalf of the Foundation at the United Nations during the treaty negotiations. He continued, “It was an honor to participate in this historic process, which focused on the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, leading inevitably to their international prohibition. Today – because of this treaty – the world is a safer place, though there remains much work to be done.”

    The treaty was adopted today by a vote of 122 to 1 with 1 abstention. It will open for signatures by states at the United Nations in New York on September 20, 2017. The treaty will enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth instrument of ratification is deposited with the United Nations. The treaty can be read in its entirety at http://www.undocs.org/en/a/conf.229/2017/L.3

    #     #     #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger or Rick Wayman, please call 1.805.965.3443.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

    Rick Wayman delivering a statement on behalf of NAPF at the United Nations on June 16, 2017.

  • Statement at the United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons

    Rick Wayman, NAPF’s Director of Programs and Operations, delivered this statement to the United Nations Conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination, on June 16, 2017. The text of the final treaty, adopted on July 7, 2017, is here.

    wayman_un

    Thank you Madame President,

    Nuclear deterrence, the logic it professes, and the practices it justifies, are reckless, costly, and completely counterproductive to the aims of global security. We agree with Indonesia, which has highlighted the need to delegitimize nuclear deterrence as a concept.

    I refer you to our Working Paper 39, which presents reasons why nuclear deterrence is inadequate and flawed as a means of providing security, and is antithetical to the goal of comprehensive nuclear disarmament.

    Relying on the constant threat of nuclear weapons use, nuclear deterrence in any form cannot coexist with the pursuit of comprehensive nuclear disarmament.

    Therefore, we encourage the inclusion of a clause in the preamble of the treaty to the effect of:

    “Understanding that nuclear deterrence is only an unproven hypothesis regarding human behavior — one that does not provide physical protection and could fail catastrophically.”

    In addition, since nuclear deterrence constitutes an ongoing threat of nuclear weapons use, we support proposals outlined by South Africa and Iran, and backed by numerous states, to include the threat of use of nuclear weapons in the preamble.

    Thank you, Madame President.

    Video of NAPF’s statement begins at 24:20.

     

  • National Illusions and Global Realities

    This article was originally published by Huffington Post.

    For as long as they have existed, nations have clung to the illusion that their military strength guarantees their security.

    The problem with this kind of thinking is that the military power that one nation considers vital to its security fosters other nations’ sense of insecurity.  In this climate of suspicion, an arms race ensues, often culminating in military conflict.  Also, sometimes the very military strength that a nation intended for protection ends up emboldening it to engage in reckless, aggressive behavior, leading to war.

    By the twentieth century, the devastation caused by wars among nations had grown so great that the general public and even many government officials began to recognize that a world left to the mercies of national military power was a dangerous world, indeed.   As a result, after the mass slaughter of World War I, they organized the League of Nations to foster international security.  When this proved insufficient to stop the march of nations toward World War II and its even greater devastation, they organized a new and stronger global entity: the United Nations.

    Unfortunately, however, bad habits die hard, and relying on military force to solve problems is one of the oldest and most destructive habits in human history.  Therefore, even as they paid lip service to the United Nations and its attempts to create international security, many nations slipped back into the familiar pattern of building up their armed forces and weaponry.  This included nuclear weapons, the most effective instruments of mass slaughter yet devised.

    Not surprisingly, then, although the leaders of highly militarized nations talked about building “peace through strength,” their countries often underwent many years of war.  Indeed, the United States, the most heavily-armed nation since 1945, has been at war with other countries most of that time.  Other nations whose post-World War II military might has helped embroil them in wars include Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran.

    Given this sorry record, it is alarming to find that the nine nuclear-armed nations (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea) have ignored the obligation under the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to divest themselves of nuclear weapons and, instead, recently embarked on a new round in the nuclear arms race.  The U.S. government, for example, has begun a massive, 30-year program to build a new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities to last the United States well into the second half of the twenty-first century.  This program, slated to cost $1 trillion, includes redesigned nuclear warheads, as well as new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs, and production plants.

    However, as the nuclear powers renew their race to catastrophe, the non-nuclear powers are beginning to revolt.  Constituting most nations of the world, they have considerable clout in the UN General Assembly.  In late 2016, they brought to this body a resolution to launch negotiations on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.  Critics of the resolution maintained that such a treaty was ridiculous, for, ultimately, only the nine nuclear powers could negotiate their disarmament―not an assembly of other nations.  But supporters of the resolution argued that, if the overwhelming majority of nations voted to ban nuclear weapons―that is, make them illegal under international law―this would put substantial pressure on the nuclear powers to comply with the world community by acting to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

    To avoid this embarrassment, the nuclear powers and their allies fought back vigorously against passage of this UN resolution.  But, on December 23, 2016, the resolution sailed through the UN General Assembly by an overwhelming vote:  113 nations in favor and 35 opposed, with 13 abstentions.

    And so, on March 27, 2017, a diplomatic conference convened, at the UN headquarters in New York City, with the goal of crafting what the UN called a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”  Some 130 countries participated in the first round of these negotiations that included discussions with leaders of peace and disarmament groups and a range of experts on nuclear weapons.  But the nuclear powers and most of their allies boycotted the gathering.  In fact, at a press conference conducted as the conclave began, Nikki Haley, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, and representatives of other nuclear powers denounced the proceedings.

    Perhaps because of the boycott by the nuclear powers, the UN negotiations went forward smoothly.  On May 22, Ambassador Elayne Whyte of Costa Rica, president of the conference, released a first draft of the UN treaty, which would prohibit nations from developing, producing, manufacturing, possessing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons.  The UN conferees plan to adopt necessary revisions and, then, produce a final treaty for a vote in early July.

    To publicize and support the treaty, peace and disarmament groups have organized a June 17 march in New York City.  Although dubbed a Women’s Ban the Bomb March, it is open to people of different genders, ages, races, nationalities, and faiths.  It will assemble in midtown Manhattan, at Bryant Park, at noon, after which the marchers will head for Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, near the UN headquarters, for a rally.

    As this treaty directly challenges the long-time faith in the value of national military power, typified by the scramble for nuclear weapons, it might not get very far.  But who really knows?  Facing the unprecedented danger of nuclear war, the world community might finally be ready to dispense with this national illusion.

    Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://www.lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany.  He is the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

  • A New UN Nuclear Convention Is In the Making

    This article was originally published by In Depth News.

    sergio_duarte

    The timely release of the draft Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by President Elayne Whyte-Gómez well in advance of the start of the second part of the negotiations will permit delegations from Member States and participating non-governmental organizations as well as interested institutions and individuals to study the text and come to the United Nations on June 15 fully prepared to contribute to the finalization of the Convention.

    A first look at the draft brings to mind the importance of the humanitarian considerations that lie at the basis of the movement to achieve an international legal norm against nuclear weapons. The first five preambular paragraphs clearly recognize the catastrophic consequences and implications of any use of nuclear weapons and the suffering of victims of such use and of those affected by nuclear weapon tests and go on to reaffirm the rules applying to armed conflict.

    Most importantly, the Preamble declares that any such use is contrary to the rules of international law, in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law, which derive from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.

    The subsequent preambular paragraphs express the determination of the States Parties to the Convention to contribute to the realization of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to act toward the achievement of further effective measures of nuclear disarmament in order to facilitate the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.

    They also stress the existence of an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, as contained in the unanimous ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 8 1996. The crucial importance of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), of the Comprehensive Test-ban Treaty (CTBT) and of the instruments establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones toward the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime and realizing the objective of nuclear disarmament is duly reaffirmed.

    These expressions make abundantly clear that the draft in no way aims at disrupting the existing non-proliferation regime or undermining its legal basis, but rather at its strengthening in order to realize longstanding objectives of the international community as a whole.

    The first two operative paragraphs are clearly formulated and spell out the basic obligations to be undertaken by the Parties with regard to nuclear weapons as well as the steps to be followed in the fulfillment of such obligations. Prohibitions contained in Article 1. (a) to (g) encompass, among other activities, the development, production, manufacture of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices as well as their possession and stockpiling. The transfer of such weapons or devices and their stationing, installation or deployment anywhere is likewise outlawed. Article 1.2.(a) reinforces the provisions of the CTBT by prohibiting any nuclear test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

    Drawing on the example set by the Chemical Weapons Convention each Party to this new Convention is required to submit a declaration on whether it has manufactured, possessed or otherwise acquired nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices after a certain date. This provision does not, however, require the destruction of the declared weapons or devices.

    Article 3 deals with the obligation to accept safeguards to prevent diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, as provided for in the Annex of the Convention. It is important to ensure that the application of such safeguards is performed in full accordance with the Statutes of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    The interesting and innovative provisions contained in articles 4 and 5 seem to need further clarification. According to Article 4, States Party that have eliminated, prior to the entry into force of the Convention for it, nuclear weapons manufactured, possessed or otherwise acquired after that date undertake to cooperate with the IAEA for the purpose of verification of the completeness of its inventory of nuclear materials and installations.

    This presupposes that the process of elimination of nuclear weapons must precede the entry into force of the Convention for each State accepting that obligation. Such process, however, is not subject to independent verification.

    Article 5 then becomes very relevant, since it deals with proposals for further effective measures of nuclear disarmament, including the verified and irreversible elimination of any remaining nuclear weapons programmes, especially through Protocols to be considered by the Parties to the Convention. States that become Parties to the Convention and which possess nuclear weapons manufactured or otherwise acquired before December 5, 2001 can avail themselves of the possibility of proposing further effective measures relating to their nuclear disarmament to be considered by the States Parties at their Meetings as provided for in Article 9 and adopted by the Convention.

    In this way, the Convention remains permanently open to the inclusion of new Parties that decide to eliminate their own nuclear arsenals according to the provisions of the Convention and then accede to it at a time of their own choosing. Significant segments of public opinion in States that do not possess nuclear weapons themselves, but which have nuclear hosting or nuclear sharing arrangements with nuclear weapon States could be attracted to this possibility and help bring about changes in the current attitudes of their governments.

    The remaining draft provisions are quite clear and should not raise much controversy. Article 6 is in line with the humanitarian inspiration of the Convention. Article 9 makes possible for States not Party to attend the Meetings and Review Conferences as observers. Article 13 is innovative inasmuch as it fosters adherence to the Convention by calling upon on States party to “encourage” non-Parties to ratify, accept, approve or accede to it. Explicit mention is made in Article 19 to the fact that the Convention does not affect the rights and obligations of Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    The text presented by President Whyte-Gómez avoids the establishment of different categories among the Parties to the future Convention and keeps open future accession by States that possess or host nuclear weapons as described above.

    States that possess nuclear weapons and some of their allies have repeatedly voiced opposition to the prohibition treaty, while non-nuclear-weapon States have become increasingly critical of what they regard as lack of political will on the part of the possessor States to honor their nuclear disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT.

    The success of the Convention and its ability to evolve over time into a universal instrument codifying the repudiation of nuclear weapons will depend on the response of public and specialized opinion worldwide, particularly in States that remain initially outside its purview. States that become Parties to the Convention, as well as civil society organizations supporting it have a special responsibility to work toward its universalization.

    There is great expectation on the part of the 132 States and the many non-governmental organizations that participated in the first part of the Conference last May for the continuation of the work on the elaboration of the new Convention. It must be kept simple and clear and at the same time be inclusive and open to universal participation.

    72 years since the start of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and 47 years since the entry into force of the NPT, the continued existence of nuclear weapons and the frightening prospect of their use still haunt mankind. The opportunity to establish an international legal norm prohibiting such weapons must not be squandered.

    * Sergio Duarte was the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs with the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2007-2012). He was the President of the 2005 Seventh Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. A career diplomat, he served the Brazilian Foreign Service for 48 years. He was the Ambassador of Brazil in a number of countries, including Austria, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia concurrently, China, Canada and Nicaragua. He also served in Switzerland, the United States, Argentina and Rome.

  • US Prepares to Confront Nuclear Ban Treaty with Smart Bombs

    This article was originally published by In Depth News.

    donald_trumpOn May 23, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a press release celebrating President Trump’s proposed 2018 budget. DOE specifically lauded the proposed “$10.2 billion for Weapons Activities to maintain and enhance the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons enterprise.”

    Less than 24 hours earlier, Ambassador Elayne Whyte of Costa Rica released a draft of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Ambassador Whyte is President of the United Nations Conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination. Over 130 nations have participated in the ban treaty negotiations thus far. A final treaty text is expected by early July.

    The draft treaty would prohibit state parties from – among other things – developing, producing, manufacturing, possessing or stockpiling nuclear weapons. The United States has aggressively boycotted the treaty negotiations, and has actively sought to undermine the good faith efforts of the majority of the world’s nations to prohibit these indiscriminate and catastrophically destructive weapons.

    No one is surprised at President Trump’s proposed funding for nuclear weapons activities; in fact, it is largely a continuation of the U.S. nuclear “modernization” program that began under President Obama. What is alarming, however, is the tacit admission by the Department of Energy that it is not simply maintaining current U.S. nuclear warheads until such time as they are eliminated. Rather, it is enhancing the “effectiveness” of nuclear weapons by incorporating new military capabilities into new weapons expected to be active through the final decades of the 21st century.

    The draft ban treaty makes clear “that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and for the health of future generations.”

    Whether or not the United States plans to join the majority of the world’s nations in a treaty banning nuclear weapons, its policies and programs must reflect the indisputable evidence of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons use. There is simply no excuse for investing in new nuclear weapons instead of an all-out diplomatic push for true security in a world without nuclear weapons.

    A Good Faith Obligation

    Article VI of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) obligates all parties to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date. That treaty entered into force over 47 years ago.

    The draft ban treaty repeats the unanimous 1996 declaration of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which said, “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.”

    Judge Christopher Weeramantry was Vice President of the ICJ when it issued its 1996 Advisory Opinion. In a paper that he wrote for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2013, he examined in detail the concept of good faith in the context of nuclear disarmament.

    He wrote, “There is no half-way house in the duty of compliance with good faith in international law.” He continued, “Disrespect for and breach of good faith grows exponentially if, far from even partial compliance, there is total non-compliance with the obligations it imposes.”

    The U.S. and numerous other nuclear-armed countries argue that they are in compliance with their obligations because the total number of nuclear weapons in their arsenals has decreased. Quantitative reductions are important, and the progress on this front has been significant over the past couple of decades. However, a nuclear arms race need not simply be quantitative. Rather, what we see now among many of the nuclear-armed nations is a qualitative nuclear arms race, with enhancements of weapons’ “effectiveness” being a key component.

    This qualitative nuclear arms race is a blatant breach of the good faith obligation and, according to Judge Weeramantry’s interpretation, likely even constitutes bad faith.

    A Ban Is Coming

    Regardless of how much money the United States and other nuclear-armed nations commit to their nuclear arsenals, the vast majority of the world’s nations plan to conclude a treaty banning nuclear weapons in July.

    Even though such a treaty will not immediately halt nuclear weapons development or diminish the threat that current nuclear weapon arsenals pose to all humanity, it is an important step in the right direction.

    The NPT and customary international law require all nations – not just those that possess nuclear weapons – to negotiate for nuclear disarmament. The ban treaty is the first of many steps needed to fulfill this obligation, and will lay a solid foundation for future multilateral action.

    Non-nuclear-armed countries must continue to enhance the effectiveness of their diplomatic arsenals to ensure the successful entry into force of a ban treaty and subsequent measures to finally achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Author’s note: Generally speaking, the U.S. Department of Energy is in charge of the design, production and maintenance of nuclear warheads and bombs, while the Department of Defense deals with the delivery systems (ICBMs, submarines, and bomber aircraft) and deployment in additional multi-billion dollar budget lines not addressed in this article. For more information on the Department of Energy’s nuclear “modernization” plans, see the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s new report “Accountability Audit.”

  • Time to Ban the Bomb

    This article was originally published by World Beyond War.

    This week, the Chair of an exciting UN initiative formally named the “United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination” released a draft treaty to ban and prohibit nuclear weapons just as the world has done for biological and chemical weapons. The Ban Treaty is to be negotiated at the UN from June 15 to July 7 as a follow up to the one week of negotiations that took place this past March, attended by more than 130 governments interacting with civil society. Their input and suggestions were used by the Chair, Costa Rica’s ambassador to the UN, Elayne Whyte Gómez to prepare the draft treaty. It is expected that the world will finally come out of this meeting with a treaty to ban the bomb!

    This negotiating conference was established after a series of meetings in Norway, Mexico, and Austria with governments and civil society to examine the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. The meetings were inspired by the leadership and urging of the International Red Cross to look at the horror of nuclear weapons, not just through the frame of strategy and “deterrence”, but to grasp and examine the disastrous humanitarian consequences that would occur in a nuclear war.   This activity led to a series of meetings culminating in a resolution in the UN General Assembly this fall to negotiate a treaty to ban and prohibit nuclear weapons. The new draft treaty based on the proposals put forth in the March negotiations requires the states to “never under any circumstances … develop, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess, or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices … use nuclear weapons … carry out any nuclear weapon test”. States are also required to destroy any nuclear weapons they possess and are prohibited from transferring nuclear weapons to any other recipient.

    None of the nine nuclear weapons states, US, UK, Russia, France, China, Indian, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea came to the March meeting, although during the vote last fall on whether to go forward with the negotiating resolution in the UN’s First Committee for Disarmament, where the resolution was formally introduced, while the five western nuclear states voted against it, China, India and Pakistan abstained.   And North Korea voted for the resolution to negotiate to ban the bomb! (I bet you didn’t read that in the New York Times!)

    By the time the resolution got to the General Assembly, Donald Trump had been elected and those promising votes disappeared. And at the March negotiations, the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, flanked by the Ambassadors from England and France, stood outside the closed conference room and held a press conference with a number of “umbrella states” which rely on the US nuclear ‘deterrent” to annihilate their enemies (includes NATO states as well as Australia, Japan, and South Korea) and announced that “as a mother” who couldn’t want more for her family “than a world without nuclear weapons” she had to “be realistic” and would boycott the meeting and oppose efforts to ban the bomb adding, “Is there anyone that believes that North Korea would agree to a ban on nuclear weapons?”

    The last 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) five year review conference broke up without consensus on the shoals of a deal the US was unable to deliver to Egypt to hold a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone Conference in the Middle East. This promise was made in 1995 to get the required consensus vote from all the states to extend the NPT indefinitely when it was due to expire, 25 years after It entered into force.   The five nuclear weapons states in the treaty, US, UK, Russia, China, and France, promised to make “good faith efforts” for nuclear disarmament. In that agreement and all the other countries of the world promised not to get nuclear weapons, except for India, Pakistan, and Israel who never signed and went on to get their own bombs. North Korea had signed the treaty, but took advantage of the NPT’s Faustian bargain to sweeten the pot with a promise to the non-nuclear weapons states for an “inalienable right” to “peaceful” nuclear power, thus giving them the keys to the bomb factory. North Korea got its peaceful nuclear power, and walked out of the treaty to make a bomb.   At the 2015 NPT review, South Africa gave an eloquent speech expressing the state of nuclear apartheid that exists between the nuclear haves, holding the whole world hostage to their security needs and their failure to comply with their obligation to eliminate their nuclear bombs, while working overtime to prevent nuclear proliferation in other countries.

    The Ban Treaty draft provides that the Treaty will enter into effect when 40 nations sign and ratify it. Even if none of the nuclear weapons states join, the ban can be used to stigmatize and shame the “umbrella” states to withdraw from the nuclear “protection” services they are now receiving.   Japan should be an easy case.   The five NATO states in Europe who keep US nuclear weapons based on their soil–Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Turkey– are good prospects for breaking with the nuclear alliance. A legal ban on nuclear weapons can be used to convince banks and pension funds in a divestment campaign, once it is known the weapons are illegal.   See www.dontbankonthebomb.org

    Right now people are organizing all over the world for a Women’s March to Ban the Bomb on June 17, during the ban treaty negotiations, with a big march and rally planned in New York.   See www.womenbanthebomb.org/

    We need to get as many countries to the UN as possible this June, and pressure our parliaments and capitals to vote to join the treaty to ban the bomb.   And we need to talk it up and let people know that something great is happening now!   To get involved, check out www.icanw.org

    Alice Slater serves on the Coordinating Committee of World Beyond War

  • Draft Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons Released

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:
    Sandy Jones
    (805) 965-3443; sjones@napf.org

    Rick Wayman
    (805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org

    DRAFT TREATY TO BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS RELEASED TODAY

    In a momentous step to create a safer and more secure world, a draft treaty to ban nuclear weapons was released today by the United Nations. The document is seen as an essential milestone in the years-long effort to ban these indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction and an important step toward their eventual elimination.

    Over 130 countries participated in the first negotiation session that took place in March of this year in New York under the auspices of the United Nations. Participants shared initial positions and goals for the treaty language, focusing on the humanitarian cost of nuclear weapons use and the threat posed to every country. Most also compared a nuclear weapons ban to previous bans on chemical and biological weapons, land mines, and cluster munitions, which have had significant impact and changed international behavior.

    David Krieger, President of the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “This draft treaty is a historic step on the road to a nuclear weapons-free world. It provides an excellent framework for the negotiations that will resume on June 15th. The arc of the nuclear threat is bending toward prohibition and abolition. It is time for the nuclear-armed countries and their allies to join with the active non-nuclear states in putting an end to the nuclear threat to humanity for their common benefit.”

    The world now faces 21st century threats and challenges — cyber attacks, pandemic disease, climate chaos and terrorism. These threats cannot be addressed by nuclear weapons or the logic of nuclear deterrence. More ominously, the spread of nuclear weapons technology and material only increases the chances of intentional or accidental nuclear detonation by states or terrorist groups.

    Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said, “Now that we have a draft, nuclear-armed and nuclear alliance states should take the opportunity to engage productively in these discussions. Failure to participate undermines any objection they might have once the document is complete. This is a test of their commitment to a world without nuclear weapons.”

    Countries will have the opportunity to finalize the treaty at the second negotiation session, which will take place from June 15 through July 7 at the United Nations in New York .

    The draft treaty in its entirety can be found at http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BanDraft.pdf.

     

    #                                                                             #                                                             #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, please call 1.805.965.3443.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

  • “Modernization” Violates Every Likely Prohibition in Ban Treaty

    This article was originally published in Reaching Critical Will’s Nuclear Ban Daily.

    According to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, who spoke at a side event in Conference Room B on Tuesday, all nine nuclear-armed countries are “modernizing” some or all aspects of their nuclear arsenals. This might go some way in explaining why many of these countries so vehemently oppose the good faith ban treaty negotiations that began this week in New York.

    Taking as an example the United States’ actual and proposed modernization plans, every single likely prohibition contained in a nuclear ban treaty would be violated.

    Stockpiling, possession, development, production, and deployment would all likely be prohibited under this treaty. Additional proposed prohibitions include the use, threat of use, transfer, testing, and financing.

    It is plain to see how the first five elements listed would be violated by a “modernized” arsenal. But what about the rest?

    The use and threat of use of nuclear weapons are implicit in the policy of nuclear deterrence. As President Trump is rumored to have asked about nuclear weapons, “If we have them, why can’t we use them?”

    Transfer of nuclear weapons is a key to the modernization of the United States’ B61-12 nuclear bomb. Widely considered to be the world’s first “smart” gravity bomb, this “modernized” bomb, its guided tail fin kit and variable explosive yield would be transferred to the territories of five non-nuclear weapon states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey) under the auspices of NATO.

    There are many voices within the United States calling for a resumption of full-scale underground nuclear testing in Nevada. Some believe that it is desirable as a geopolitical message to foes such as North Korea. However, proposed U.S. nuclear modernization programs are introducing more and more uncertainty into the stockpile by combining different elements of different warheads into new weapons. These proposed combinations, which are becoming more and more exotic, have never been tested together. Once billions of dollars and years of work have been shoveled into the new warheads, pressure to conduct full-scale tests would be significant.

    A prohibition on financing of nuclear weapons would cover financial or material support to public and private enterprises involved in any of the activities covered in the treaty. Predicted to cost at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years, such a prohibition would have meaningful impact. Even the nuclear weapon design labs in the United States are operated by for-profit entities. The companies currently involved in producing and financing nuclear weapons are well known thanks to the investigative work of PAX in their regular “Don’t Bank on the Bomb” reports.

    While the nuclear-armed states are unlikely to join a ban treaty at its inception, codifying the illegitimacy and illegality of nuclear weapons into international law will be a significant step leading to elimination. Delegitimizing, slowing, and stopping the “modernization” programs of nuclear-armed states is of immediate importance, and is another reason why a ban treaty is urgently needed.