Tag: Open Ended Working Group

This article was originally published by History News Network.

Although the mass media failed to report it, a landmark event occurred recently in connection with resolving the long-discussed problem of what to do about nuclear weapons.  On August 19, 2016, a UN committee, the innocuously-named Open-Ended Working Group, voted to recommend to the UN General Assembly that it mandate the opening of negotiations in 2017 on a treaty to ban them.

For most people, this recommendation makes a lot of sense.  Nuclear weapons are the most destructive devices ever created.  If they are used―as two of them were used in 1945 to annihilate the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki―the more than 15,000 nuclear weapons currently in existence would destroy the world.  Given their enormous blast, fire, and radioactivity, their explosion would bring an end to virtually all life on earth.  The few human survivors would be left to wander, slowly and painfully, in a charred, radioactive wasteland.  Even the explosion of a small number of nuclear weapons through war, terrorism, or accident would constitute a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude.

Every President of the United States since 1945, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama, has warned the world of the horrors of nuclear war.  Even Ronald Reagan―perhaps the most military-minded among them―declared again and again:  “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Fortunately, there is no technical problem in disposing of nuclear weapons.  Through negotiated treaties and unilateral action, nuclear disarmament, with verification, has already taken place quite successfully, eliminating roughly 55,000 nuclear weapons of the 70,000 in existence at the height of the Cold War.

Also, the world’s other agents of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons, have already been banned by international agreements.

Naturally, then, most people think that creating a nuclear weapons-free world is a good idea.  A 2008 poll in 21 nations around the globe found that 76 percent of respondents favored an international agreement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons and only 16 percent opposed it.  This included 77 percent of the respondents in the United States.

But government officials from the nine nuclear-armed nations are inclined to view nuclear weapons―or at least their nuclear weapons―quite differently.  For centuries, competing nations have leaned heavily upon military might to secure what they consider their “national interests.”  Not surprisingly, then, national leaders have gravitated toward developing powerful military forces, armed with the most powerful weaponry.  The fact that, with the advent of nuclear weapons, this traditional behavior has become counter-productive has only begun to penetrate their consciousness, usually helped along on such occasions by massive public pressure.

Consequently, officials of the superpowers and assorted wannabes, while paying lip service to nuclear disarmament, continue to regard it as a risky project.  They are much more comfortable with maintaining nuclear arsenals and preparing for nuclear war.  Thus, by signing the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, officials from the nuclear powers pledged to “pursue negotiations in good faith on . . . a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”  And today, nearly a half-century later, they have yet to begin negotiations on such a treaty.  Instead, they are currently launching yet another round in the nuclear arms race.  The U.S. government alone is planning to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to refurbish its entire nuclear weapons production complex, as well as to build new air-, sea-, and ground-launched nuclear weapons.

Of course, this enormous expenditure―plus the ongoing danger of nuclear disaster―could provide statesmen with a powerful incentive to end 71 years of playing with their doomsday weapons and, instead, get down to the business of finally ending the grim prospect of nuclear annihilation.  In short, they could follow the lead of the UN committee and actually negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons as the first step toward abolishing them.

But, to judge from what happened in the UN Open-Ended Working Group, a negotiated nuclear weapons ban is not likely to occur.  Uneasy about what might emerge from the committee’s deliberations, the nuclear powers pointedly boycotted them.  Moreover, the final vote in that committee on pursuing negotiations for a ban was 68 in favor and 22 opposed, with 13 abstentions.  The strong majority in favor of negotiations was comprised of African, Latin American, Caribbean, Southeast Asian, and Pacific nations, with several European nations joining them.  The minority came primarily from nations under the nuclear umbrellas of the superpowers.  Consequently, the same split seems likely to occur in the UN General Assembly, where the nuclear powers will do everything possible to head off UN action.

Overall, then, there is a growing division between the nuclear powers and their dependent allies, on the one hand, and a larger group of nations, fed up with the repeated evasions of the nuclear powers in dealing with the nuclear disaster that threatens to engulf the world.  In this contest, the nuclear powers have the advantage, for, when all is said and done, they have the option of clinging to their nuclear weapons, even if that means ignoring a treaty adopted by a clear majority of nations around the world.  Only an unusually firm stand by the non-nuclear nations, coupled with an uprising by an aroused public, seems likely to awaken the officials of the nuclear powers from their long sleepwalk toward catastrophe.

Today there are approximately 1,800 nuclear weapons posed on high alert, ready to be launched in minutes. The radical contingency of our world due to these weapons of mass annihilation necessitates action.

On Friday, over 50 countries and over 30 international organizations concluded two weeks worth of negotiations at the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG).These meetings discussed how to create a world free of nuclear weapons. By the end of the OEWG, it was clear that a majority of countries supported a new legal instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons.

The Chair of the OEWG will produce a report on the last two weeks of negotiations, which will be released in late July or early August. The negotiations will likely continue on August 16, 17 and 19, with informal sessions held before August.

On May 4, Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of Hiroshima, recalled how 360,000 innocent civilians became victims of one of the two worst forms of indiscriminate violence in human history. After a blinding flash of light, Setsuko remembered the “[d]ead and injured people were covering the ground. Some were made naked by the blast. They were bleeding, burned, blackened and swollen; unrecognizable as human beings.” For the NGO Wildfire, the measure of success for the OEWG is whether participants can tell Setsuko Thurlow that they did everything they could to create a world free of nuclear weapons.

Working Paper 36, signed by 126 countries, calls on the OEWG to recommend urgent pursuit of a new legal instrument in disarmament. Many of these countries are supporting negotiations for a treaty or ban prohibiting nuclear weapons. The creation of this instrument would strengthen Article VI of the NPT, stigmatize nuclear weapons, broaden the disarmament fora and would bring democracy to disarmament.

A prohibition treaty would reorient “the locus of power in nuclear disarmament diplomacy away from the agency of nuclear-armed states, their relationships with each other, and their capacities to resist changes to their nuclear arsenals, doctrines and postures” said Nick Ritchie, from the University of York, on Wednesday, May 11. Wildfire believes that creating this instrument would allow states to look Setsuko Thurlow in the eyes and say that they did everything they could.

Sadly, some countries missed Wildfire’s mark. On Thursday, Belgium stated that “my country, at this point in time, cannot subscribe itself to the statement that nuclear weapons should never be used under any circumstances.” Many other states claimed that their national security was predicated on their nuclear umbrella.

These states, the so-called Progressive Approach states, want the OEWG to recommend the same step-by-step building blockage approaches that have been recommended for decades. Mexico noted on Thursday that the Progressive Approach recommendations are not bad, they are just not enough. The Progressive Approach seeks ratification of the CTBT, a fissile material cutoff treaty and they want the NPT to be the forum for all nuclear disarmament talks.

On Wednesday, Germany claimed that the status quo has created a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads by 80% since their Cold War height. But today there are still over 15,000 nuclear weapons, each with the potential to eviscerate entire cities in seconds. Further, the world is entering a new arms race.

As Mexico noted on Tuesday, United States is currently advancing plans to spend a trillion dollars modernizing its nuclear triad.The United States intends to field over 1,000 new Long Range Standoff cruise missiles, create a new B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bomb, create a successor for the B2 bomber, develop a substitute to the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, make the Ohio class submarines nuclear capable, and further enhance its nuclear weapons infrastructure.

Russia is also engaged in strategic nuclear modernization. Russia is acquiring eight Borei-class ballistic missile submarines, modernizing its TU-160 Blackjack bombers and is half way through a decade long plan to produce over four hundred ICBMs and SLBMs.

Similarly, India and Pakistan are developing a sea-based leg of their nuclear arsenals. China is seeking assured retaliation through modernization and North Korea is testing and advancing its own nuclear capabilities.

The Progressive Approach did not stop these developments.But there is good news.The OEWG ended with clear majority support of a ban on nuclear weapons. On Friday, Palau stated that a prohibition treaty has reached a “critical mass.” Novel approaches like a prohibition treaty are necessary to turn the tide of modernization.

A prohibition on nuclear weapons should be seen as an utmost priority. Stigmatizing nuclear weapons would bolster the existing nuclear disarmament regime. It could serve as a crucial compliment to the NPT and future negotiations for a CTBT and FMCT.  A prohibition treaty would be a substantial next step towards a world free of the nuclear threat.

The Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) for nuclear disarmament is holding sessions this week at the United Nations Office in Geneva. States are gathering to discuss the steps necessary to create a world free of nuclear weapons. The OEWG will submit a report summarizing the discussions and agreed recommendations to the UN General Assembly for consideration. On Thursday, the OEWG discussed the role of nuclear weapons in the security context of the 21st century.

Ecuador stated that nuclear weapons were a Sword of Damocles that hangs “over all human survival.” Mexico spoke out against nuclear modernization projects, claiming that these plans increase the likelihood of eliminating humanity entirely. Ireland noted that nuclear command and control structures have failed cyber probes. Palau said that “a nuclear armed world will always be a world on the brink of catastrophe.” These states all argued that a ban treaty that prohibits nuclear weapons would bolster national and global security and should be recommended to the UN General Assembly by the OEWG.

Meanwhile, the so-called ‘Progressive Approach’ countries rejected a ban treaty and reiterated their commitment to maintaining nuclear weapons for “national security.” Hungary likened denying the security value of nuclear weapons to denying climate change. Perhaps the most revealing intervention came from Bulgaria, claiming that it “cannot at this point in time subscribe itself to the statement that nuclear weapons should never be used under any circumstances.” Bulgaria’s approach is perplexing. Bulgaria both claims to want a world free of nuclear weapons and to reserve ability of some states to use these weapons of indiscriminate violence. Instead of living in a world constantly threatened by nuclear war, South Africa proposed that we create a world free of nuclear weapons to promote a very basic right to life. South Africa believes that “there can be no right hands for wrong weapons.”

Poland, which also backs the ‘Progressive Approach’, stated that it must rely on nuclear weapons not because it wants to, but because it has to. Poland cited fears of Russian aggression and border conflicts. Egypt responded, claiming that it faced significant security concerns in the Middle East and yet it is not under the protection of a nuclear umbrella. Jamaica and Egypt both questioned why they should not pursue nuclear weapons. After all, they argued, if nuclear weapons promote security then proliferation should be encouraged.

General John Cartwright, a guest speaker during the session Thursday, responded by saying something rather insightful. He stated that Jamaica does not need nuclear weapons to have a deterrent because Jamaica has military alliances and other non-nuclear capabilities. Notably, General Cartwright said that deterrence theory was based off of “circular logic.” Egypt noted that the origins of deterrence theory predate nuclear weapons. From the outset, nuclear weapons were not even created for deterrence. Still, some countries do not understand that deterrence can exist without the risks posed by the world’s most dangerous weapons.

Nuclear weapons represent an unparalleled violence. They threaten the existence of seven billion global citizens at every moment. The likelihood of accidental or intentional nuclear war is rising as nuclear weapons modernization projects seek to make nuclear weapons more usable. Further, nuclear weapons do not even provide an adequate response to the security threats posed by the 21st century. Countries simply can not nuke non-state actors.

As Palau stated, security cannot and must not be predicated on the basis of illegitimate weapons. The best way to attain a world without these illegitimate weapons is to ban them. The “Progressive Approach” countries claim to not support a ban for rather perplexing reasons. Estonia argued that it did not support a ban treaty because it would not affect the disarmament regime. Immediately after, Estonia said that a ban treaty would undermine the NPT by pushing the nuclear weapons states away from future negotiations.

This argument, that a ban treaty would do nothing and simultaneously would undermine the NPT, has been repeated many times by the so called “Progressive Approach” countries. The reality is quite the opposite. As Mexico stated, a ban treaty would strengthen the NPT, not weaken it. A ban treaty is directly in the spirit of Article VI of the NPT. A ban treaty would help foster international norms and laws against the possession and use of nuclear weapons.

Countries advocating for the ‘Progressive Approach’ do not intend to make positive contributions to the OEWG, which is tasked with taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. Their repeated demands that nuclear weapons are required for their national security are a clear demonstration of where their allegiances lie. These countries are sadly not committed to the goals of the OEWG, to Article VI of the NPT and to codified international law prohibiting the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Joseph Rodgers is currently in Geneva, Switzerland attending the OEWG. He has worked on nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation and waste issues for the Arms Control Association, Tri-Valley CAREs, The Committee to Bridge the Gap, and the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. Joseph is pursuing a masters degree in Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey.

This article was originally published by Reaching Critical Will.

How can an approach to global security built on the threat of mass annihilation be compatible with a 21st century understanding of international cooperation, asked Austria during a rather surreal debate on Thursday. A handful of states that include nuclear weapons in their security doctrines extolled their perception that these weapons afford them security and stability and must be maintained by “responsible” states until some distant future date when the “conditions” for nuclear disarmament are “correct”. This aggressive articulation of support for the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons seems to have been sparked by a more vocal and assertive display of support for the prohibition of these weapons. As the commencement of negotiations towards a treaty banning nuclear weapons gains traction, these nuclear apologists have—rather unwisely—begun escalating and entrenching their support for maintaining weapons of terror.

Fear mongering from the weapons supporters

Perversely, although with apparent sincerity, states supporting the continued existence of weapons of massive, indiscriminate violence sought to argue that in fact it is those supporting a prohibition that are acting irresponsibly, threatening the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and fuelling polarisation in the international community.

Belgium, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Republic of Korea, and Poland all gave a version of accounts in which banning nuclear weapons is destabilising and where pursuit of the decades-old failed step-by-step approach is the only “effective” way forward. They all asserted that a prohibition treaty would upset the international order in varying ways, with Poland claiming it would “destroy the NPT system” and Hungary comparing prohibition supporters to climate change deniers because they “ignore the security dimensions of nuclear weapons”.

“This is not a game,” warned Poland. “Our lives and our future are at stake.”

A dangerous game

The sake of our lives and future is exactly why nuclear weapons must be outlawed and eliminated. It is the wielding of nuclear weapons that is destabilising. It is the perpetuation of the idea that nuclear weapons afford security that is irresponsible. It is, as Mexico said, the doctrine of deterrence that undermines the NPT and the broader multilateral system.

Any peace that we have experienced in the past 70 years is because of our efforts towards collective security in spite of, not because of, nuclear weapons, argued Ambassador Lomonaco of Mexico. Nuclear weapons “force states into an automatically adversarial relationship in which they threaten each other with the most destructive technologies of violence we have been able to develop as human beings,” remarkedThomas Nash of Article 36 speaking on behalf of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

The real challenge to the NPT comes not from prohibiting nuclear weapons but from failing to fulfil NPT commitments. This includes the commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons, but also, as Switzerland noted, commitments to transparency, de-alerting, and reducing the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines—commitments that many states railing against the prohibition claim to support and yet have failed to implement.

A nuclear weapon ban treaty will not undermine the NPT. It only undermines a perverse conception of the NPT as an instrument that confers legitimacy on nuclear weapons for the five states recognised as possessors under that Treaty and for their allies who include the potential use of those weapons in their security doctrines.

Whose security is it anyway?

The crux of the problem is not polarisation “caused” by the majority of states seeking to prohibit nuclear weapons. Rather the problem is the entrenched position of a minority of nuclear-armed and allied states that is fundamentally incompatible with international law and generally accepted moral principles. The problem is not that the majority of states ignore the security dimensions of nuclear weapons but that the minority does not seem to believe that humanity is a prerequisite for genuine, sustainable security. State security, in their view, is seen as distinct from and apparently more important than a much broader concept of security that as Austria’s Ambassador Hajnoczi includes the environment, economics, and human beings, among other things. As Mr. Nash said, “security is not security without humanity.”

This false binary privileges those seeking to maintain an imbalanced, discriminatory set of international relationships in which nuclear weapons are a symbol of power. Ms. Shorna-Kay Richards of Jamaica questioned why these states would wilfully posit nuclear weapons as instrumental to their security, asking why then should all countries not pursue nuclear weapons.

A number of other reasonable questions for these states remained unanswered at the end of the debate. Why, if they are so convinced of the perceived security benefits of nuclear weapons, would they want ever to get rid of them? How can they say with certitude that nuclear weapons bring stability and security in one breath and in the next say they are committed to nuclear disarmament? How can they claim that they want peace and security yet perpetuate the existence of and reliance upon weapons of mass destruction? Why are these countries even party to the NPT, if threatening the use of nuclear weapons is so useful for security?

A crisis of faith

The nuclear-supportive states in the room seeking to disrupt efforts towards a prohibition came across at times a bit like believers that the sun revolves around the earth having their entire worldview put into question. It is as if they have deemed nuclear weapons as critical to their survival, to the extent they no longer recognise that their security is interdependent with the security of other countries. In saying that they are being threatened by aggressive states undertaking exercises on their borders, they seem not to recognise the perceptions of their own actions by the states they fear. These perceptions of aggression of course go both ways and nuclear weapons lock these relationships into a highly negative dynamic from which it is very difficult to escape. These states also missed the opportunity of today’s debate to address what Austria, Brazil, and many others have described as a suicidal policy of nuclear deterrence. Instead they overlooked the risks and consequences of nuclear weapons and asserted that their security concerns are being ignored.

The majority of states, which reject nuclear weapons and are seeking to prohibit them, do not ignore this minority’s perceived security concerns. They are trying to change their perspective – seeking the paradigm shift that many have said is essential to move those states out of their current nuclear-armed security tangle. The reality that is denied in the dogma of nuclear weapons is that, as Ms. Eunice Akiwo of Palausaid, they are immoral, they are inhumane, and soon they will be illegal. In this context, it is irresponsible for these states to claim that prohibiting nuclear weapons will be destabilising. Rather they should redouble their efforts to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their own security doctrines and stop seeking to undermine the positive developments towards a legally-binding instrument that strengthen the global norm against nuclear weapons and increase international security for all.

The Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) for nuclear disarmament is holding sessions this week at the United Nations Office in Geneva. States are gathering to discuss the steps necessary to create a world free of nuclear weapons. The OEWG will submit a report summarizing the discussions and agreed recommendations to the UN General Assembly for consideration.

The OEWG is unique in a number of ways. First, all states currently participating do not possess nuclear weapons. All states possessing nuclear weapons chose not to attend. Second, civil society groups can make interventions on the floor. Civil society groups do not have to be as tactful as states, and their participation has contributed to a lively debate on the floor.

On Tuesday, Austria announced that 126 states are supporting working paper 36, which calls for filling a ‘legal gap’ by moving forward with nuclear disarmament negotiations. This gap, Austria suggests, should be filled with a legally binding treaty or instrument that bans nuclear weapons. On Monday, Costa Rica stated that a ban treaty that pushes for the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the most viable path forward. Nicaragua said that a ban treaty must prevent the modernization of both nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon testing, implying that the ban must include computer testing. On Tuesday, Mexico claimed that vital elements of this ban treaty should prohibit the possession, acquisition, stockpiling, development, transfer, stationing, deployment, modernizing, and financing of nuclear weapons.

A ban treaty would be a substantial step forward for the nuclear disarmament regime. However, a select few states at the OEWG claim that a ban treaty would be ineffective, or worse, would undermine the existing international disarmament regime entirely. These countries are presenting flawed arguments against a ban and suggesting alternatives that will merely continue the 46 years of stalling on the nuclear disarmament issue.

Canada, Japan, Latvia, Poland and Belgium stated that a ban may undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which they believe is the bedrock for the disarmament regime and has created progress. These countries could not be further from the mark. By speaking out against a ban on nuclear weapons, these states demonstrate their lack of commitment to Article VI of the NPT, which commits all signatories to pursue nuclear disarmament.  In the words of Ireland, “The best way to strengthen the NPT is to fulfill the NPT.”

Hungary believes that a ban treaty would stigmatize nuclear weapon states, preventing them from participating in future negotiations. While a ban treaty would stigmatize nuclear weapon states, possession of the world’s most dangerous weapons should be stigmatized. 46 years after the entry into force of the NPT, there are still over 15,000 nuclear weapons. As Jamaica noted on Monday, these weapons threaten “the very survival of humanity.” Stigmatizing nuclear weapon states could be the push necessary for serious disarmament negotiations among states possessing nuclear weapons.

Canada argued on Tuesday that now is not the right time for a ban on nuclear weapons because there is a lack of political will from nuclear weapon possessing states. In its working paper, Canada argues that the disarmament community should “focus not on differences but on common ground by identifying concrete and practical ‘building blocks’” to reach a world without nuclear weapons. Only when global zero becomes “within reach” would “additional legal measures for achieving and maintaining a world without nuclear weapons” be viable. In their words, “significant work remains ahead of us before we attain this point.”

Canada’s strategy, called the “progressive approach,” would maintain the status quo. This strategy will not eliminate nuclear weapons. The idea that the international community should wait for states possessing nuclear weapons to garner political will to get rid of their own weapons is absurd. This strategy has not worked for 46 years and it is not likely to work now. The OEWG presents an opportunity to create real progress on disarmament by starting the process of banning nuclear weapons. The so-called “progressive approach,” which argues that a ban on nuclear weapons would be detrimental, is actually regressive.

All of these states arguing against a ban are diverting attention from a substantive and productive working group. They are discussing stopping nuclear terrorism, the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the creation of a fissile materials treaty. But as the Los Alamos Study Group noted, these measures are not international disarmament measures – they are nonproliferation measures. Since they are not disarmament measures, the OEWG is not the appropriate forum for these issues.

The creation of a treaty banning nuclear weapons is a vital next step to achieving a world without nuclear weapons. This treaty would not only strengthen the existing disarmament regime and codify important norms against nuclear weapons, but it would also broaden the regime. As a clear majority of countries agree, a ban can and should be recommended by the OEWG.

Joseph Rodgers is currently in Geneva, Switzerland attending the OEWG. He has worked on nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation and waste issues for the Arms Control Association, Tri-Valley CAREs, The Committee to Bridge the Gap, and the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. Joseph is pursuing a masters degree in Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey.