Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: disarmament

  • Bonnie Jenkins | In Her Own Words

    Bonnie Jenkins | In Her Own Words

    Tell us about your professional journey working on nuclear issues.

    I got started in this field in Washington D.C. while working as a Presidential Management Fellow. I’d received my Master’s in Public Administration and my Juris Doctorate degree. It was then that a mentor at the Pentagon in the International Law office asked me to a meeting where he was giving legal advice on strategic arms reduction.

    It was my first exposure to anything about weapons of mass destruction and I was fascinated. I’d heard that if you wanted to work on arms control and nonproliferation for a U.S. delegation, you had to go to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, or ACDA.

    So I joined ACDA and began working with a delegation that was negotiating a conventional weapons treaty. There weren’t a lot of women on that delegation and there certainly were not a lot of women of color. I was the only one in a substantive position in a room with more than 20 countries negotiating the treaty.

    During my years at ACDA, I received my Master’s in International and Comparative Law. When I left ACDA, I worked on a few congressional commissions before returning to school to get my Ph.D. at the University of Virginia. After completing my dissertation, I joined the Ford Foundation and was there between 2005 and 2009. It was in January 2009 that I received a call to meet with then Senator Clinton who offered me a job as an Ambassador.

    You have led delegations to Nuclear Security Summits and you were the U.S. Representative to the G7 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Mass Destruction. What was it like leading delegations and maneuvering in male-dominated international spaces like the Nuclear Security Summits?

    When I started as an Ambassador in 2009, (it was a new position called Coordinator of Threat Reduction Programs that carried the level of Ambassador), there were a number of women experts that Secretary Clinton had brought into the field of WMD within the State Department. There is still more work to be done in this arena and the field is still very lacking in people of color. Unfortunately, when I left government in January 2017, there weren’t as many women represented in U.S. leadership roles on issues of WMD as when I arrived in 2009.

    As far as how I maneuvered, I didn’t have a specific strategy. I just went to work every day and did my thing. I recognized the situation, but it wasn’t always on my mind. There were certainly times when I would feel it more than others. Generally, if you’re the different one in the room, you’re going to wonder about what you say and whether you’re making sense. You’re likely to second-guess yourself more than if you’re a person from the dominant culture or you’re a man in the room. I think men will say things and not worry if it makes sense or if they embarrass themselves – they just keep moving. Women tend to hesitate more before speaking and question whether they’re making sense. That kind of stuff just happens when you’re different, but you deal with it and keep going.

    Many times, I made myself worry more than I needed to. I finally realized that I was worried about things that nobody else was even considering. I carried this burden of, Oh my God – I said something five hours ago, and I’m still not sure if I made the right statement. You realize how much society has made women and people of color feel that we’re not as good and we’re not as competent, even when we clearly are.

    How have you seen gender and/or race impact the conversation or rhetoric used in formal talks such as chemical, biological and nuclear negotiations?

    I wrote a blog focused on diversifying the voices and perspectives of nuclear nonproliferation. Interestingly, I received push back from someone saying, “This doesn’t really matter. All that really matters is that you have certain positions that you take.” It totally passed by the fact that there may be perspectives that could be reflected within policy that we still have yet to understand because we’ve never had significant voices of people of color or women in policy development. We don’t know if we might have taken a different position on things or adopted a different policy. Even if the end result is the same, the path may differ, resulting in better or different kinds of relationships with countries afterwards. I say this because I think people can hide behind the fact that nuclear is a ‘hard security issue’ and say that diverse perspectives don’t matter, but I don’t know if we’ve ever had a real chance to see them.

    With President Trump’s handling of the North Korea situation, from the very beginning it was very much a masculine approach. In terms of the rhetoric – the things that were said, the way they were said – it was like two young boys attacking each other. This was a clear indication of a process that was not productive and only stopped when they started acting more mature. The process might have been different had there been women involved.

    Having said that, what do you see as the biggest barriers to having more women engaged in these issues?

    Well I think it’s having a gender lens. I’ve gone to events in Washington and was pleased to see many young women there from think-tanks, research institutions, and NGOs. Not so much from government. I think the biggest barrier will be whether that can be translated into women moving up the ranks, staying in the field and at the table as they mature in this field. This relies on women staying engaged, but a high percentage of women at events will likely not stay. This is partly because they may not be interested, or they may have children and face challenges to get back in the field. Then there’s the other side – will the established culture be one that makes women feel comfortable and one where they can make a difference? Will there be opportunities for them? Is it going to remain a field where the predominant white male culture ensures that it stays that way? During the Obama Administration, particularly the first four years, you saw a lot of women (“a lot” is relative) but now you see that progress moving backwards.

    Certainly, you’re picking up that torch, with the Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS), the organization you founded in December 2017. Why did you start WCAPS and what makes it so unique and important?

    I’m thrilled to finally be able to do this work. There is such a need for hearing the voices of women of color in areas of peace and security, including nonproliferation issues. There’s a lot I can do to support that.

    WCAPS is focusing on three areas: empowering young women – that’s the first thing. The second thing is strengthening the voices of women already in the field and giving them more exposure. The third is addressing the culture that limits the involvement of women, especially women of color.

    Our mentorship program is a big part of empowering younger women. We also do podcasts and spotlights on women of color to give voice to women who are in this field. This also helps to empower young women because they get to see other women of color who are actually doing the work and are successful. These are women they would otherwise not hear about.

    To address the culture, I host events with NGOs focused on really getting out there and letting other people, such as white men, see that there are women who work in this field and should be valued. Those events work to bring this discussion to NGOs that are still generally identified as “White Male Yale.” I hosted a conversation looking at women of color and peace and security and asking how can we redefine national security. I’m pleased with the way some think tanks and NGOs are making room for these discussions. It’s critical to bring these conversations to those who may not typically be having them.

    How might your professional journey have been different, or had doors opened for you a bit more easily, if you had been able to have women of color as your mentors?

    I’m a pretty driven person. Though I didn’t have the luxury of having women of color in my field that I could look up to, there were women of color in other fields that I saw as role models. There were also white men who were role models. I’ve been told by young people of color, not just women, that they shy away from this field because they don’t see people like themselves. They ask, “Why am I doing this when I should be working on civil rights?” or “I should be working on reducing police brutality.” There are things that might be closer to home for women and for people of color. If they’re committing to this field, it’s important to see that there are others in it who look like them.

    That’s one of the reasons why one-third of my work is dedicated to helping people see and hear from women who are working on these issues. Folks can visit WCAP’s “Pioneers” page and read about the first African American or first Asian American Ambassador. This way, young women who I can’t reach directly can still be inspired.

    There are many women who speak about applying a gender lens to nuclear issues or peace and security. Do you employ a gender and/or a race lens to your work?

    I have two answers to that. I’m African-American and I’m also a woman. I grew up in the Bronx without much money and so I have a very different background from many people I work with. I am very conscious of who I am. When I approach an issue, I bring my identity with me. I don’t consciously say I’m going to apply a gender lens or a person of color lens because that’s naturally how I see things. I think that term applies more to people who need to actively incorporate that lens. For me, “gender lens” means that you’re looking at something and saying, how would this impact women differently than men. Or maybe suggesting we need to bring women in to include perspectives that are not just male.

    You’ve been very intentional about working with youth. How do you view your role in supporting younger women looking to become meaningful change makers?

    I feel very fortunate to have gotten where I am from where I started. I know that, particularly in my area of work, there aren’t a lot of women of color. There are, however, many women of color out there doing great things, but they’re just not getting attention. I feel it’s my responsibility to be a role model to young people, and to bring to the attention of young people, other women doing great work out there that go unseen. The mentorship program is very important, especially because I hear from women all the time that they don’t see people like themselves reflected professionally. For me it’s all about that.

    We’re at such a speed change in U.S. policy regarding how we treat other countries, how we’re perceived by other countries and what we’re doing domestically. We’re making a lot of mistakes that are going to take a long time to fix. In addition to wanting to be a role model, I feel it’s our responsibility, as older Americans, to do what we can to make the right environment for the next generations. America is still great, but we have a lot of things we need to fix. Moving forward, we can be more realistic about who we really are as a country and stop trying to believe we’re so perfect. It’s okay not to have all the answers and its okay not to be the best in the world. You’re never going to fix yourself if you don’t know what your problems are.

    This administration has done the exact opposite of what they said they would do. They were talking about “Let’s make America great again” and I think what they’ve shown is that America has always been great in some ways and has never been great in others. However, some people aren’t ready to hear it.

    What were your keys to success?

    Being open to new opportunities, being persistent, not giving up, believing in myself, being respectful to others, and being open but intentional at the same time. I’ve always said to myself, what is the next thing I want to achieve and how will I get there? Many things have happened that I wasn’t anticipating that have turned out great, but even then, I put myself in a position where things can happen, and I can see the unexpected as opportunities. Balancing the need to have direction with the need to be open to opportunities, and to be able to take those opportunities without being afraid to do so – that is key.

    Bonnie Jenkins brings a world of experience to the field of Peace and Security. She is an expert on arms control and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. She served for nine years as legal adviser to U.S. ambassadors and delegations negotiating arms control and nonproliferation treaties during her time as a legal adviser in the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. She has been a legal adviser on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, among others. She has also served as U.S. legal adviser on relevant treaty implementing bodies, such as the CTBT Organization (CTBTO), and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). She also has over 20 years of military experience, serving as an Air Force Reserves Officer before joining the Naval Reserves, rising to the role of Lieutenant Commander and serving her last post at the U.S. Central Command.

    Today Bonnie Jenkins is beginning a new venture as the Founder and President of the Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS). WCAPS aims to inspire a new generation of diverse women leaders committed to having a role and a prominent voice in the field of Peace and Security – a voice that is needed now more than ever.

  • Mother’s Day Proclamation

    Julia Ward Howe issued this proclamation in the year 1870.

    Julia Ward HoweArise, then, women of this day! Arise, all women who have hearts, whether your baptism be that of water or tears!

    Say firmly: “We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have taught them of charity, mercy and patience. We women of one country will be too tender of those of another to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.”

    From the bosom of the devastated earth, a voice goes up with our own. It says, “Disarm, Disarm!”

    The sword of murder is not the balance of justice. Blood not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession. As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail & commemorate the dead. Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesars but of God.

    In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

    Biography of Julia Ward Howe

    US feminist, reformer, and writer Julia Ward Howe was born May 27, 1819 in New York City. She married Samuel Gridley Howe of Boston, a physician and social reformer. After the Civil War, she campaigned for women rights, anti-slavery, equality, and for world peace. She published several volumes of poetry, travel books, and a play. She became the first woman to be elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters in 1908. She was an ardent antislavery activist who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic in 1862, sung to the tune of John Brown’s Body. She wrote a biography in 1883 of Margaret Fuller, who was a prominent literary figure and a member of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Transcendentalists. She died in 1910.

  • NAPF Activities at the UN General Assembly First Committee

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has actively engaged with young people on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation by providing them with opportunities to observe the UN First Committee and events on nuclear disarmament.

    Engagement with Young People

    To ensure that young people could actively monitor discussions in UNGA’s First Committee, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation collaborated with Ban All Nukes Generation.  As part of this collaboration, NAPF accredited several young people and provided them with opportunities to monitor international discussions on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, alternative forums in the international disarmament machinery, and the WMDFZ in the Middle East.

    In addition, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation formed a relationship with Northeastern University to enable a young person to help the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Ban All Nukes Generation in New York. The student, Ms. Christina Reynolds, a senior at Northeastern, has been actively monitoring the First Committee and assisting the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation with its events and presentations in New York.

    Events

    On October 22, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Peace Boat, and Hibakusha Stories convened a side event entitled “ Different perspectives on nuclear disarmament: Hibakusha, Humanitarian, and the Youth.”  Ms. Setsuko Thurlow and Mr. Yasuaki Yamashita provided moving testimonies about the devastating impact of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Mr. Christian N. Ciobanu focused on Ban All Nuke Generation’s project in Oslo on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. He explained to the audience that BANG brought 40 young people to Oslo during the Norwegian Conference on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons. He also explained how this opportunity provided young activities to bolster the humanitarian initiative.

    Finally, Mr. Clifton Truman Daniel, the grandson of US President Truman, focused on his personal conviction to support the nuclear disarmament movement.On October 27, Mr. Christian N. Ciobanu and Mr. Fabian Rutherford, Geneva Representative of the School of African and Oriental Studies’ Strategic Concept for Removal of Arms and Proliferation (SCRAP), organized a special presentation for students at Drew University on civil society’s perspectives on nuclear disarmament.

    Mr. Ciobanu focused on the humanitarian initiative on nuclear weapons and the imperative need for the international community to immediately ban these nuclear weapons. Mr. Rutherford provided a general overview of the international disarmament machinery and information about SCRAP’s project to these young students.

  • 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.

  • Youth Speech to the 2013 NPT PrepCom

    Speech Written by Julian Caletti, Ban All Nukes Generation; Mayra Castro, Ban All Nukes Generation; Christian N. Ciobanu, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Nina Eisenhardt, Ban All Nukes Generation; Martin Hinrichs, Ban All Nukes Generation; and Raphaël Zaffran, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies, and Gentlemen,

    We thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the youth. Young people from Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, Oceania and the Middle East have contributed with comments to this speech in order to claim their voice.

    Nuclear weapons have catastrophic effects that are not controllable in time or space. In the preamble of the NPT, the parties declared their intention to work together to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    As contained in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, “the legal import of that obligation goes beyond that of a mere obligation of conduct; the obligation involved here is an obligation to achieve a precise result – nuclear disarmament in all aspects.”

    Moving beyond the abstract legal debates, those catastrophic and inhumane devices are a concrete threat to humanity. We share the views of the 1984 Human Rights Committee, which clearly stated that the production, testing, possession and use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited and recognized as crimes against humanity.

    Distinguished Delegates,

    We have been waiting for you to act “in good faith” since 1970 to achieve general and complete disarmament. However, very little has been achieved in multilateral negotiations.

    The youth of the world demands all of the states to take concrete and sustainable steps to accomplish this goal. In our view, nuclear disarmament is as urgent as non-proliferation.

    If states really want to protect their citizens, they must re-evaluate their priorities by divesting military to social expenditures in order to improve the health, education and welfare of their respective citizens. We do not believe deterrence protects us. Nuclear deterrence is based on rational behavior and perfect information. However, we live in an imperfect world with incomplete and asymmetrical information. Therefore, nuclear deterrence is inherently flawed and is not effective.

    Additionally, the international landscape has changed. The Cold War is over. In today’s multipolar and increasingly globalized world, the logic of deterrence is even more unreliable.

    Ultimately, in the post-cold war context, we do not believe that the deterrence rhetoric is still valid and we find the current status quo does not protect us from the threats posed by nuclear weapons.

    Our generation is the first one after the Cold War. In this context, we do not divide the world between West and East: them and us. We are global citizens.

    Nuclear deterrence does not make sense to us because it is based on the construction of states as enemies. We refuse to be enemies.

    Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Delegates,

    We would like to thank H.E. Ambassador Laajava of Finland and regional states for trying to establish a Middle East WMD Conference in 2012. Nevertheless, we are very concerned that the current situation could lead to a paradigm shift in the regional security of the Middle East.

    We strongly believe that there is a high risk that states may question the legitimacy of the NPT and attempt to acquire nuclear weapons to deter one another. Disarmament education in the region is crucial to bring this issue into the limelight. It is the linchpin of civil society engagement and the key for a prosperous and peaceful Middle East.

    Honorable Delegates,

    We welcome the initiative of Norway for hosting the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo. We urge all states to join this important discussion at the follow-up conference in Mexico.

    We have not experienced the same suffering as the hibakusha, but we can imagine the inhumanity of these nuclear weapons by listening to their testimonies. No nation is capable to react to this humanitarian catastrophe.

    We believe that negotiations for a global ban on nuclear weapons are achievable. Recently, the UN General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty, a fundamental step in disarmament. The decision to adopt such a treaty demonstrates the feasibility to make a concrete step towards disarming the world.

    Consequently, we believe that a ban on nuclear weapons is also possible. Again, we emphasize that disarmament education is the most valuable tool towards this goal.
    Educated mind-sets transcend borders to bring people together and change the status quo. We further request states to fulfil their commitments to the 2010 Action Plan with regard to disarmament education.

    Distinguished Delegates,

    We are the youth of the world. Our freedom, our security, and our fate lie in your hands. Our future could become hell on earth, if you do not succeed in banning these dreadful weapons. Our lives and the lives of our children depend on your actions. We want you to favor cooperation and compromise over confrontation and conflict. We want you to achieve concrete results that improve the world that we live in.

    As youth of the world, we want you to take action – and we want it now.

    Thank you very much.

  • Compassion, Wisdom and Courage: Building a Global Society of Peace and Creative Coexistence

    To download the full 2013 Peace Proposal, click here.

    Synopsis

    Efforts are currently under way to define a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a target date of 2030. As we debate these goals, we must face head-on the underlying ailments of human civilization in order to ensure that efforts to improve the human condition are more than mere stopgap measures—that they enable people struggling in the face of dire threats to recover the hope and strength needed to lead lives of dignity.

    For this we need a spiritual framework that will bring into greater clarity those things we cannot afford to ignore, while ensuring that all that we do contributes to the larger objective of a global society of peace and creative coexistence.

    If we picture such a society as an edifice, the ideals of human rights and human security are key pillars that hold it up, while the foundation on which these rest is respect for the dignity of life. For this to be a meaningful and robust support for other endeavors, it must be felt and experienced palpably as a way of life.

    To this end, I would like to propose the following three commitments as guidelines for action:

    • The determination to share the joys and sufferings of others
    • Faith in the limitless possibilities of life
    • The vow to defend and celebrate diversity

    I believe that the social mission of religion in the twenty-first century must be to bring people together in an ethos of reverence for life’s inherent dignity and worth.

    One pressing threat to the dignity of far too many people in our world today is poverty. The pervasive stress of economic deprivation is compounded when people feel that their very existence is disregarded, becoming alienated and being deprived of a meaningful role and place within society. This underlies the need for a socially inclusive approach focused on the restoration of a sense of connection with others and of purpose in life.

    Regardless of circumstance, all people inherently possess a life-state of ultimate dignity and are in this sense fundamentally equal and endowed with limitless possibilities. When we awaken to our original worth and determine to change present realities, we become a source of hope for others. Such a perspective is, I believe, valuable not only for the challenges of constructing a culture of human rights, but also for realizing a sustainable society.

    To forestall the further fissuring of society and enable a culture of peace to take root in the world, dialogue based on the celebration of our diversity is indispensable.

    Outlawing nuclear weapons as inhumane

    There has been a growing movement to outlaw nuclear weapons based on the premise that they are inhumane. It is my strong hope that an expanding core of NGOs and governments supporting this position will initiate the process of drafting a treaty to outlaw these weapons in light of their inhumane nature.

    Japan, as a country that has experienced nuclear attack, should play a leading role in the realization of a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC). Further, it should undertake the kind of confidence-building measures that are a necessary predicate to the establishment of a Northeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone and to creating the conditions for the global abolition of nuclear weapons.

    The SGI’s efforts to grapple with the nuclear weapons issue are based on the recognition that the very existence of these weapons represents the ultimate negation of the dignity of life. At the same time, nuclear weapons serve as a prism through which to perceive new perspectives on ecological integrity, economic development and human rights. This in turn helps us identify the elements that will shape the contours of a new, sustainable society, one in which all people can live in dignity.

    Toward this end, I would like to make three concrete proposals:

    • Making disarmament a key theme of the Sustainable Development Goals. Halving world military expenditures relative to 2010 levels and abolishing nuclear weapons and all other weapons judged inhumane under international law should be included as targets for achievement by the year 2030.
    • Initiating the negotiation process of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The international community should engage in active debate to broadly shape international public opinion, with the goal of agreement on an initial draft by 2015.
    • Holding an expanded summit for a nuclear-weapon-free world. The G8 Summit in 2015, the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would be an appropriate opportunity for such a summit.

    Fostering a culture of human rights

    To enhance United Nations efforts to promote a culture of human rights, I propose that the promotion of human rights be a central element of the SDGs for the year 2030, including the following two specific targets.

    Every country should set up a Social Protection Floor (SPF) to ensure that those who are suffering from extreme poverty are able to regain a sense of dignity. Some thirty developing countries have in fact already started implementing plans for minimum income and livelihood guarantees. Such guarantees are a necessary condition for sustainability and a culture of human rights.

    Every society should promote human rights education and training. Alongside the legal system of guarantees and remedies, efforts to raise awareness of human rights through education and training could serve as a catalyst for the social interaction and support that provides a sense of connection and helps people regain hope and dignity. Regional centers for human rights education and training could be established within the framework of the United Nations University, along the lines of the centers currently promoting education for sustainable development.

    Today’s children will inevitably play a crucial role in the work of constructing a culture of human rights. To protect them and improve the conditions under which they live, it is crucial that all countries ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols, and pass the domestic legislation needed to fulfill the treaty obligations.

    Strengthening Sino-Japanese relations

    Improving relations between China and Japan—currently said to be at their worst since World War II—is an essential element in building a global society of peace and coexistence.

    Political and economic relations between these two countries are constantly impacted by the ebb and flow of the times. This is why, faced with a crisis, it is important to adamantly uphold the two central pledges in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People’s Republic of China (1978): To refrain from the use or threat of force, and not to seek regional hegemony.

    I urge Japan and China to set up a high-level forum for dialogue aimed at preventing any worsening of the situation. Its first order of business should be to institute a moratorium on all actions that could be construed as provocative. This should be followed by an analysis of the steps by which the confrontation evolved in order to facilitate the development of guidelines for more effective responses to future crises.

    I suggest that Japan and China institute the practice of holding regular summit meetings, similar to those established through the Élysée Treaty that regularly brought together French and German Heads of State and Government. I further propose that Japan and China together launch an organization for environmental cooperation in East Asia. This would help lay the foundations of a new partnership focused on peace and creative coexistence and joint action for the sake of humanity.

    The key to realizing all these goals ultimately lies in the solidarity of ordinary citizens. The year 2030 serves as a major goal in the effort to promote cooperation in the international community, and will also mark the one-hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Soka Gakkai. Working with all those committed to a global society of peace and creative coexistence, we will continue to foster solidarity among the world’s people as we look ahead to that significant milestone.

    Daisaku Ikeda is President of Soka Gakkai International.

  • Advancing the Disarmament and Non-proliferation Agenda: Seeking Peace in an Over-armed World

    Ban Ki-moon delivered this speech at the Monterey Institute of International Studies on January 18, 2013.

    It is a pleasure to be at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

    I thank President Sunder Ramaswamy for hosting. I also want to recognize Dr. William Potter, Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

    It is not surprising that this Center is located at the Monterey Institute.

    Your graduates are grappling with the many challenges of a world in transition: protecting the environment; promoting sustainable development; strengthening international peace and security.

    Your faculty and students have worked closely with the United Nations.

    The world needs your skills and commitment, especially in advancing disarmament and non-proliferation.

    These are great causes. They are part of the UN’s very identity, helping to define who we are and what we stand for.

    These issues are also part of my own personal and professional DNA.

    In 1992, I served as vice-chair of the South-North Korea Joint Nuclear Control Commission aimed at realizing the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

    I also served in 1999 as Chair of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.

    As United Nations Secretary-General, one of my first decisions was to restructure our disarmament office and re-energize its work.

    I also launched a five-point plan on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation early in my tenure.

    Today I would like to review what we have achieved and what challenges remain.

    I will focus on five linked and mutually reinforcing points – accountability; the rule of law; partnerships; the role of the Security Council; and education.

    As I look at the disarmament landscape, my feelings are mixed.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains a cornerstone of the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. It has helped curb nuclear proliferation and avoid a world with many dozens of nuclear states as had been feared.

    I also recognize the combined efforts of governments, experts, civil society and international organizations with disarmament and non-proliferation mandates.

    But, as we know, the architecture of non-proliferation is not perfect. There are loopholes and gaps.

    And even more troubling, nuclear disarmament progress is off track.

    Delay comes with a high price tag.

    The longer we procrastinate, the greater the risk that these weapons will be used, will proliferate or be acquired by terrorists.

    But our aim must be more than keeping the deadliest of weapons from “falling into the wrong hands”.

    There are no right hands for wrong weapons.

    This brings me to my first point: accountability.

    Each Member State needs to uphold its commitments.

    My advice, my appeal to all, is this: Be a first mover. Don’t look to others or to your neighbours to start disarmament and arms control measures.

    If you take the lead, others will follow.

    Deferring nuclear disarmament indefinitely pending the satisfaction of an endlessly growing list of preconditions can lead only to a world full of nuclear weapons.

    I want to stress the special responsibility of the nuclear-armed States.

    I also encourage nuclear-weapon-States to come up with a bold set of measures to promote transparency of their nuclear arsenals.

    They can do this next April at the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference.

    Or they can start today by contributing data to the UN’s “Repository of information provided by nuclear-weapon States”, as mandated at the Review Conference in 2010.

    This should commence with in-depth consultations between the States with the largest nuclear arsenals — the Russian Federation and the United States — followed by deep and verified cuts in their arsenals and additional reductions by other States.

    I urge all nuclear-armed States to reconsider their national nuclear posture.

    Nuclear deterrence is not a solution to international peace and stability. It is an obstacle.

    Member States also need to reinvigorate the international disarmament machinery.

    When I spoke to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva I said plainly that the very credibility of the body is at risk.

    The Conference’s record of achievement is overshadowed by inertia that has now lasted for more than a decade. That must change.

    Another year of stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament is simply unacceptable.

    The Conference should start long-overdue negotiations on a fissile material treaty as a priority.

    It should also start deliberations on a nuclear weapons convention, a legal security assurance for non-nuclear weapon States against nuclear threats, and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

    Global nuclear disarmament requires global arrangements.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    My second point relates to strengthening the rule of law.

    We must intensify efforts to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force.

    I urge the remaining eight states whose ratification is essential for the Treaty’s entry into force to do so without further delay.

    In April, I will travel to Washington D.C. with the leadership of the CTBTO to support the Obama Administration’s efforts to get this treaty ratified.

    We also need to achieve universal membership in the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions.

    This is not a theoretical issue; there are concerns in the here and now.

    Twice in recent months, I have written to President Assad of Syria to warn against the use of these weapons in the conflict, and I have urged the Syrian government to join the Chemical Weapons Convention without further delay.

    Let there be no doubt: The use of such weapons would be an outrageous crime with dire consequences.

    We also have to further strengthen the capacity of the organizations with key responsibilities for ensuring implementation of treaties and other agreements, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the CTBTO.

    One major rule of law priority this year is to reach agreement on an Arms Trade Treaty.

    There is a great need for responsible standards in the legal trade in conventional weapons, as well as for expanded international cooperation to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.

    Every day, we at the United Nations see the human toll of an absence of regulations or lax controls on the arms trade.

    We see it in the suffering of populations caught up in armed conflict or victimized by pervasive crime.

    We see it in the killing and wounding of civilians – including children in schools.

    We see it in the massive displacement of people and through grave violations of international law.

    An agreed set of standards for arms exports along with strong national legislation can help begin to change all of that.

    When concluded, the Arms Trade Treaty will advance global efforts to bring the rule of law to the conventional arms trade.

    This would expand on past successes in conventional arms control, especially the conclusion of Conventions outlawing cluster munitions and landmines.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    My third point today is the importance of advocacy and partnerships.

    Disarmament cannot be considered in isolation from other global challenges.
    The world spends more on the military in one month than it does on development all year.

    And four hours of military spending is equal to the total budgets of all international disarmament and non-proliferation organizations combined.

    The world is over-armed. Peace is under-funded.

    Bloated military budgets promote proliferation, derail arms control, doom disarmament and detract from social and economic development.

    The profits of the arms industry are built on the suffering of ordinary people – in Mali, Syria, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    At the foot of the pyramid lie small arms. At the top are nuclear weapons.

    I will continue to use my moral authority and convening power to advocate for disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear security.

    That is why I was the first Secretary-General to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where I met with the survivors — the hibakusha.

    It is why I visited the former nuclear test site at Semipalatinsk, in Kazakhstan.

    I have also been to Chernobyl and Fukushima, and convened high-level meetings at the United Nations on Nuclear Safety and Security and on Countering Nuclear Terrorism.

    In all I do, I rely on partners to help me spread the word.

    Non-governmental organizations are making significant contributions, such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the Global Zero movement and many other groups.

    We are using social media to enrol individuals around the world as messengers for peace, as with the UN’s “WMD-WeMustDisarm!” multimedia campaign in 2009.

    But the responsibility lies ultimately with Member States.

    This brings me to my fourth point — specific regional issues and the role of the Security Council.

    I am deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme.

    I visited Iran last August and emphatically urged the country’s leaders to take concrete steps to reassure the world community about the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

    Iran must fully comply with relevant Security Council resolutions.

    And as these issues are being addressed, parallel efforts should be undertaken to advance the broader goal of promoting peace and security in the region.

    In 1995, concerns about other security challenges in the Middle East led the States Parties to the NPT to adopt a resolution calling for the region to be free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

    Last year, we saw the postponement of an important conference to address this issue.

    We have missed a deadline. But we have not lost the opportunity to move this initiative forward.

    This year, the world community must insist on doing exactly that. And I will do all I can to help.

    Turning to the DPRK, the recent launch of a long-range rocket has exacerbated global concern about its pursuit of nuclear weapons, including means of delivery.

    I once again urge the DPRK to fully abide by the relevant Security Council resolutions.

    Countries in Northeast Asia are in transition, which can offer a new window of opportunity for the DPRK.

    I encourage the new leadership in Pyongyang to build confidence with neighbouring countries and address the concerns of the international community.

    This leads me to another important question: how to respond when Security Council resolutions are violated.

    Unless equipped with robust verification and enforcement measures, the credibility of the Security Council will be called into question.

    I urge the Security Council to take up this matter at a high-level meeting.

    The Council has a critical role to play in advancing disarmament and non-proliferation goals.

    In 2008, I urged the Council to convene a Summit-level meeting on these issues and they did so in 2009. This welcome development should be followed by further meetings and future Summits.

    By considering — and acting – on major existential threats, the Security Council can spur much-needed global debate.

    This brings me to my fifth and final point — the importance of disarmament education.

    A 2002 UN study put it well: the goal must be “To learn how to think rather than what to think.”

    Unfortunately, funding for disarmament education, training and research remains low to non-existent in many States.

    Most damaging of all, the next generation of leaders, legislators and administrators is being encouraged not to think.

    It is easier for students to learn the logic of nuclear deterrence than to learn to discard the myths that keep nuclear weapons in place.

    But education can help to refute the claim that nuclear disarmament is utopian.

    We hear this year after year, especially from critics who seem blind to the social and economic costs of such weapons and the catastrophic human effects of their use.

    Innovative teaching methods are one way forward, and here I credit the approach used at Dr. Potter’s Center, which relies heavily on simulations and role-playing.

    Technology, too, has much to offer. Web-based “massive open online courses” can reach huge audiences worldwide.

    In 2010, the UN launched its “Academic Impact” initiative to deepen its cooperation with the world’s universities.

    I hope we can encourage academia to include disarmament and non-proliferation issues in their curricula and research agendas, as you have done here.

    I am pleased to announce today that the Monterey Institute of International Studies has agreed to join the UN Academic Impact – and I thank you for your leadership and example.

    Disarmament education can also benefit governments through programmes offered at the UN’s regional centres for peace and disarmament in Latin America, Africa and in Asia and the Pacific.

    The UN’s Programme of Fellowships on Disarmament has trained over 800 public officials, mainly from developing countries.

    The UN Institute for Disarmament Research, based in Geneva, continues to perform important work, and I believe it deserves increased financial support.

    And the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the CTBTO have their own excellent training programmes.

    Education can help the world to build a global culture of peace that rejects all weapons of mass destruction as illegitimate and immoral.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Over a half century ago, President John Kennedy stood at the podium in the United Nations General Assembly and warned:

    “Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”

    The world was lucky that the nuclear arms build-up that followed did not result in a global nuclear catastrophe.

    Yet the nuclear sword remains — as does that slender thread.

    But so, too, does that plea for abolition — an appeal rooted in the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction and the unrestrained global competition for more, and more potent, weaponry.

    So I will add my own appeal to you today.

    Focus your minds not on clever ways to strengthen the thread. Focus instead on how to remove the sword.

    This is the true challenge for disarmament and non-proliferation.

    Thank you.

    Ban Ki-moon is the United Nations Secretary-General.

  • Creating the Conditions and Building the Framework for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

    2012_10_10_kane_unoda.pdf

  • The World Is Over-Armed and Peace Is Under-Funded

    This article was originally published by Eurasia Review.


    Ban Ki-moonLast month, competing interests prevented agreement on a much-needed treaty that would have reduced the appalling human cost of the poorly regulated international arms trade. Meanwhile, nuclear disarmament efforts remain stalled, despite strong and growing global popular sentiment in support of this cause.


    The failure of these negotiations and this month’s anniversaries of the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide a good opportunity to explore what has gone wrong, why disarmament and arms control have proven so difficult to achieve, and how the world community can get back on track towards these vitally important goals.


    Many defence establishments now recognize that security means far more than protecting borders. Grave security concerns can arise as a result of demographic trends, chronic poverty, economic inequality, environmental degradation, pandemic diseases, organized crime, repressive governance and other developments no state can control alone. Arms can’t address such concerns.


    Yet there has been a troubling lag between recognizing these new security challenges, and launching new policies to address them. National budget priorities still tend to reflect the old paradigms. Massive military spending and new investments in modernizing nuclear weapons have left the world over-armed ― and peace under-funded.


    Last year, global military spending reportedly exceeded $1.7 trillion ― more than $4.6 billion a day, which alone is almost twice the U.N.’s budget for an entire year. This largesse includes billions more for modernizing nuclear arsenals decades into the future.


    This level of military spending is hard to explain in a post-Cold War world and amidst a global financial crisis. Economists would call this an “opportunity cost.” I call it human opportunities lost. Nuclear weapons budgets are especially ripe for deep cuts.


    Such weapons are useless against today’s threats to international peace and security. Their very existence is de-stabilizing: the more they are touted as indispensable, the greater is the incentive for their proliferation. Additional risks arise from accidents and the health and environmental effects of maintaining and developing such weapons.


    The time has come to re-affirm commitments to nuclear disarmament, and to ensure that this common end is reflected in national budgets, plans and institutions.


    Four years ago, I outlined a five-point disarmament proposal highlighting the need for a nuclear weapon convention or a framework of instruments to achieve this goal.


    Yet the disarmament stalemate continues. The solution clearly lies in greater efforts by States to harmonize their actions to achieve common ends. Here are some specific actions that all States and civil society should pursue to break this impasse.


    Support efforts by the Russian Federation and the United States to negotiate deep, verified cuts in their nuclear arsenals, both deployed and un-deployed.


    Obtain commitments by others possessing such weapons to join the disarmament process.


    Establish a moratorium on developing or producing nuclear weapons or new delivery systems.


    Negotiate a multilateral treaty outlawing fissile materials that can be used in nuclear weapons.


    End nuclear explosions and bring into force the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.


    Stop deploying nuclear weapons on foreign soil, and retire such weapons.


    Ensure that nuclear-weapon states report to a public U.N. repository on nuclear disarmament, including details on arsenal size, fissile material, delivery systems, and progress in achieving disarmament goals.
    Establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.


    Secure universal membership in treaties outlawing chemical and biological weapons.


    Pursue parallel efforts on conventional arms control, including an arms trade treaty, strengthened controls over the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, universal membership in the Mine Ban, Cluster Munitions, and Inhumane Weapons Conventions, and expanded participation in the U.N. Report on Military Expenditures and the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms.


    Undertake diplomatic and military initiatives to maintain international peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons, including new efforts to resolve regional disputes.


    And perhaps above all, we must address basic human needs and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Chronic poverty erodes security. Let us dramatically cut spending on nuclear weapons, and invest instead in social and economic development, which serves the interests of all by expanding markets, reducing motivations for armed conflicts, and in giving citizens a stake in their common futures. Like nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, such goals are essential for ensuring human security and a peaceful world for future generations.


    No development, no peace. No disarmament, no security. Yet when both advance, the world advances, with increased security and prosperity for all. These are common ends that deserve the support of all nations.