Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: United Nations

  • Dysfunctional Disarmament

    Ban Ki-moonAs the United Nations Conference on Disarmament begins a seven-week session in Geneva, its future is on the line. Whereas countries and civil-society initiatives are on the move, the Conference has stagnated. Its credibility – indeed, its very legitimacy – is at risk.


    The “CD,” as it is informally known, has long served as the world’s only multilateral forum for negotiating disarmament. Its many impressive accomplishments include the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Much of this progress was achieved during the Cold War, proving that it is possible to create global legal norms even in times of deep political division.


    Yet today, all is not well at the CD. It operates under a consensus rule, and its member states have different priorities. Some want negotiations on nuclear disarmament; others want to ban the production of fissile material for weapon purposes; and still others insist that such a treaty should also cover existing stocks. Some want a treaty on security guarantees for non-nuclear-weapon states to assure them against the threat or use of nuclear weapons; others want a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space.


    But, instead of compromise and the give-and-take of good-faith discussions, there has been paralysis. There was a brief glimmer of hope in 2009, when the sense of paralysis led the Conference to consensus on a program of work. Unfortunately, that agenda was never implemented. As a result, the CD has failed to make any substantive progress for 15 years. We simply must not let one lost decade turn into a second.


    The CD’s future is in the hands of its member states. But the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda is too important to let the CD lapse into irrelevancy as states consider other negotiating arenas. Last September, I convened a high-level meeting at the UN to consider ways to revitalize the CD’s work and to advance multilateral disarmament negotiations.


    The participants – who included dozens of foreign ministers – were unanimous in stressing that membership of the CD is a privilege. So is the consensus rule. Just one or two countries should not be able to block the organization’s work indefinitely.


    The message was clear: no more business as usual. The CD’s member states must recognize that the Conference’s future is at a critical juncture. Continued stalemate increases the risk that some like-minded countries might take up the matter elsewhere.


    After all, the deadlock has ominous implications for international security; the longer it persists, the graver the nuclear threat – from existing arsenals, from the proliferation of such weapons, and from their possible acquisition by terrorists.


    I have urged the CD to adopt an agenda based either on the consensus that was forged in 2009, or on an alternative arrangement. Upon my request, the UN’s entire membership will take up the matter in a first-of-its-kind General Assembly meeting this July. That schedule makes the CD’s current session crucial to its future.


    Reaffirming the CD’s agenda offers the prospect of renewed negotiations on disarmament issues. Prior agreement on the scope or outcome should not be a precondition for talks – or an excuse to avoid them – but rather a subject of the negotiations themselves.


    The current stalemate is all the more troubling in view of recent momentum on other disarmament tracks, including last year’s successful NPT Review Conference and heightened attention to nuclear security. With the world focused so intently on advancing disarmament goals, the CD should seize the moment.


    Shakespeare once wrote that “there is a tide in the affairs of men.” The tide of disarmament is rising, yet the CD is in danger of sinking. And it will sink unless it fulfills its responsibility to act.

  • Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth

    This Declaration was adopted by the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, in Bolivia on April 22, 2010.


    Preamble


    We, the peoples and nations of Earth:


    considering that we are all part of Mother Earth, an indivisible, living community of interrelated and interdependent beings with a common destiny;


    gratefully acknowledging that Mother Earth is the source of life, nourishment and learning and provides everything we need to live well;


    recognizing that the capitalist system and all forms of depredation, exploitation, abuse and contamination have caused great destruction, degradation and disruption of Mother Earth, putting life as we know it today at risk through phenomena such as climate change;


    convinced that in an interdependent living community it is not possible to recognize the rights of only human beings without causing an imbalance within Mother Earth;


    affirming that to guarantee human rights it is necessary to recognize and defend the rights of Mother Earth and all beings in her and that there are existing cultures, practices and laws that do so;


    conscious of the urgency of taking decisive, collective action to transform structures and systems that cause climate change and other threats to Mother Earth;


    proclaim this Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, and call on the General Assembly of the United Nation to adopt it, as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations of the world, and to the end that every individual and institution takes responsibility for promoting through teaching, education, and consciousness raising, respect for the rights recognized in this Declaration and ensure through prompt and progressive measures and mechanisms, national and international, their universal and effective recognition and observance among all peoples and States in the world.


    Article 1. Mother Earth


    (1) Mother Earth is a living being.


    (2) Mother Earth is a unique, indivisible, self-regulating community of interrelated beings that sustains, contains and reproduces all beings.


    (3) Each being is defined by its relationships as an integral part of Mother Earth.


    (4) The inherent rights of Mother Earth are inalienable in that they arise from the same source as existence.


    (5) Mother Earth and all beings are entitled to all the inherent rights recognized in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as may be made between organic and inorganic beings, species, origin, use to human beings, or any other status.


    (6) Just as human beings have human rights, all other beings also have rights which are specific to their species or kind and appropriate for their role and function within the communities within which they exist.


    (7) The rights of each being are limited by the rights of other beings and any conflict between their rights must be resolved in a way that maintains the integrity, balance and health of Mother Earth.


    Article 2. Inherent Rights of Mother Earth


    (1) Mother Earth and all beings of which she is composed have the following inherent rights:


    (a) the right to life and to exist;


    (b) the right to be respected;


    (c) the right to regenerate its bio-capacity and to continue its vital cycles and processes free from human disruptions;


    (d) the right to maintain its identity and integrity as a distinct, self-regulating and interrelated being;


    (e) the right to water as a source of life;


    (f) the right to clean air;


    (g) the right to integral health;


    (h) the right to be free from contamination, pollution and toxic or radioactive waste;


    (i) the right to not have its genetic structure modified or disrupted in a manner that threatens it integrity or vital and healthy functioning;


    (j) the right to full and prompt restoration the violation of the rights recognized in this Declaration caused by human activities;


    (2) Each being has the right to a place and to play its role in Mother Earth for her harmonious functioning.


    (3) Every being has the right to wellbeing and to live free from torture or cruel treatment by human beings.


    Article 3. Obligations of human beings to Mother Earth


    (1) Every human being is responsible for respecting and living in harmony with Mother Earth.


    (2) Human beings, all States, and all public and private institutions must:


    (a) act in accordance with the rights and obligations recognized in this Declaration;


    (b) recognize and promote the full implementation and enforcement of the rights and obligations recognized in this Declaration;


    (c) promote and participate in learning, analysis, interpretation and communication about how to live in harmony with Mother Earth in accordance with this Declaration;


    (d) ensure that the pursuit of human wellbeing contributes to the wellbeing of Mother Earth, now and in the future;


    (e) establish and apply effective norms and laws for the defence, protection and conservation of the rights of Mother Earth;


    (f) respect, protect, conserve and where necessary, restore the integrity, of the vital ecological cycles, processes and balances of Mother Earth;


    (g) guarantee that the damages caused by human violations of the inherent rights recognized in this Declaration are rectified and that those responsible are held accountable for restoring the integrity and health of Mother Earth;


    (h) empower human beings and institutions to defend the rights of Mother Earth and of all beings;


    (i) establish precautionary and restrictive measures to prevent human activities from causing species extinction, the destruction of ecosystems or the disruption of ecological cycles;


    (j) guarantee peace and eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;


    (k) promote and support practices of respect for Mother Earth and all beings, in accordance with their own cultures, traditions and customs;


    (l) promote economic systems that are in harmony with Mother Earth and in accordance with the rights recognized in this Declaration.


    Article 4. Definitions


    (1) The term “being” includes ecosystems, natural communities, species and all other natural entities which exist as part of Mother Earth.


    (2) Nothing in this Declaration restricts the recognition of other inherent rights of all beings or specified beings.

  • Civil Society Challenges Nuclear Deterrence Doctrine

    This article was published by Inter Press Service News Agency.


    UNITED NATIONS, Feb 24, 2011 (IPS) – As the world’s nuclear powers continue to drag their collective feet, stalling all attempts at nuclear disarmament, a group of peace activists and civil society organisations is vigourously challenging the long-held myth of “nuclear deterrence”.


    “Nuclear deterrence is a doctrine that is used as a justification by nuclear weapon states and their allies for the continued possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons,” says the coalition, which met in Santa Barbara, California last week.


    Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation and one of the participants at the meeting, told IPS that members of the coalition agreed that the longstanding doctrine must be discredited and replaced with an urgent commitment to achieve global nuclear disarmament.


    “Before another nuclear weapon is used, nuclear deterrence must be replaced by humane, legal and normal security strategies,” she said.


    A declaration adopted by the coalition states: “We call upon people everywhere to join us in demanding that the nuclear weapon states and their allies reject nuclear deterrence and negotiate without delay a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons.”


    The participants at the meeting ranged from representatives from the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Disarmament and Security Centre.


    The world’s five “declared” nuclear powers are the five veto-wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.


    Additionally, there are four “undeclared” nuclear powers: India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel (which studiously maintains a “don’t ask, don’t tell” nuclear policy).


    Asked if a worldwide campaign for nuclear disarmament by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) would succeed – as it did in the campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines years ago – Peter Weiss, president of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, told IPS the analogy with the international campaign against landmines and cluster munitions must not be overdone.


    Those weapons, unlike nukes, were never seen by the countries that had them as ways of projecting their power to their neighbours or throughout the world, even if they never used them, he said.


    He pointed out that the last word on the difficulty which nuclear weapons countries have in giving them up was spoken years ago by Juan Marin Bosch.


    In his capacity as Mexico’s ambassador for disarmament, he said, in refreshingly undiplomatic language: “The big boys are scared shit that we’re going to take away their toys,” recounted Weiss, who is also a vice president of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA).


    Alyn Ware, director of the New Zealand-based Peace Foundation, said during the past four decades the international community has achieved treaties prohibiting and eliminating inhumane weapons such as anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions, biological weapons and chemical weapons.


    However, the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons, the most inhumane and destructive of all, remains elusive.


    Ware acknowledged the role played by civil society in achieving the mine ban treaty and the convention on cluster munitions. He said two key factors in the success were a focus on the humanitarian consequences of the use of these weapons, and the application of international humanitarian law.


    Ware also said that civil society action has been effective in changing public attitudes to nuclear weapons, especially in the states possessing nuclear weapons or covered by extended nuclear deterrence.


    Whereas public opinion polls in the 1980s indicated majority acceptance of nuclear weapons, recent public opinion polls indicate the majority now supports the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons, he noted.


    However, such a change in public opinion appears to have had only a minimal impact on government policy.


    But there has been a slight shift, in that most governments now accept the vision and responsibility for achieving a nuclear weapons-free world, he added.


    Nonetheless, said Ware, few of the nuclear weapons states or their allies are prepared to abandon nuclear deterrence, prohibit the threat or use of nuclear weapons, or commence negotiations on anything other than minimal steps towards disarmament.


    The real potential of civil society to effect change in nuclear weapons policy is probably somewhere in between two polarised perspectives: public pressure is not irrelevant to a political realist world, but nor is it a magic cure that will by itself deliver the abolition of nuclear weapons, Ware declared.


    Dr Mary-Wynne Ashford of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War said there are many NGOs working on the issue of nuclear disarmament, including the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).


    “Yes, an NGO campaign is practicable and feasible,” she said. “I think consistent pressure from civil society is essential to motivate the nuclear weapons states to move to zero.”


    Doctors continue to raise the issues of the health consequences of the entire nuclear cycle from mining to production of weapons, said Ashford, who is also an associate professor at the University of Victoria in Canada.


    Dr Dale Dewar, executive director of Physicians for Global Survival (PGS), told IPS her organisation has been sustained by donors for 30 years in its campaign for a nuclear weapons-free world.


    “It will continue to do so as long as a donor base is willing to support it,” she added.


    Nancy Covington, also of PGS, told IPS: “I personally don’t see any other option than to mobilise civil society.”


    “If there is enough public education (on nuclear disarmament), then maybe civil society can make a strong enough statement that we can be heard,” she declared.

  • Nuclear Disarmament and Deterrence Education

    Introduction


    Early in 2008 I was appointed by the UN Secretary-General to his Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, as the first Australasian in 25 years.  This has been an amazing experience – giving me the opportunity to feed ideas from ordinary citizen groups into the Secretary General, and to debate with Ambassadors of the 5 nuclear weapon states and nine others on this prestigious Board. 


    The issues we have discussed so far have included pathways to nuclear abolition and nuclear deterrence; nuclear energy security; weapons in outer space; the 2010 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference; cyber warfare and nanoweapons.


    This month we will look at how to revitalise the Conference on Disarmament in order to implement some of the Secretary General’s Five Point Plan for nuclear disarmament launched during Disarmament Week in October 2008. 
    Ban Ki-Moon’s Points included the following: 



    • All parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially the nuclear-weapon States, should fulfill its requirement to enter into negotiations on nuclear disarmament, which could focus on either a convention or framework of agreements banning nuclear-weapons.

    • The nuclear-weapon States could assure non-nuclear-weapon States that they will not be the subject of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.  

    • Existing nuclear arrangements and agreements (e.g. a ban on testing, nuclear-weapon-free zones, and strengthened safeguards) need to be accepted by States and brought into force.

    • The nuclear Powers could also expand the amount of information they publish about the size of their arsenals, stocks of fissile material, and specific disarmament achievements.  

    • Complementary measures are needed such as the elimination of other types of WMD; new efforts against WMD terrorism; limits on conventional arms; and new weapons bans, including of missiles and space weapons.

    We are fortunate to have a UN Secretary General (UNSG) who is strongly advocating nuclear and general disarmament and has openly criticised nuclear deterrence. His 5 Point Plan has become a great rallying point for citizen groups, diplomats, politicians and Mayors who have come in behind him in his courageous urgently pleas for nuclear abolition.  It has therefore become an important vehicle for nuclear disarmament education.


    Ban Ki-Moon believes that “A world free of nuclear weapons is a global public good of the highest order” and that “…the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is contagious, making non-proliferation more difficult and raising new risks that nuclear weapons will be used.”


    The Secretary General opened the May 2010 NPT Review Conference on a high note, and took a leading role throughout. He gave passionate speeches in both the formal and non-governmental events calling for agreement on a comprehensive programme for nuclear disarmament. He used the opening of the Second Conference of States Parties that established Nuclear Weapon Free Zones by encouraging the diplomats. He said:  My goal – our goal – is to make the whole world a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Nuclear-weapon-free zones are the success stories of the disarmament movement. You are leading by example.


    On the eve of the NPT, he addressed the NGO Disarmament conference at the Riverside Church, where Martin Luther King had given his famous speeches. The crowd of nearly 1000 NGOs gave him 3 standing ovations – including after this rousing finale: “What I see on the horizon is a world free of nuclear weapons.  What I see before me are the people who will help make it happen. Please keep up your good work. Sound the alarm, keep up the pressure. Ask your leaders what they are doing … personally… to eliminate the nuclear menace. Above all, continue to be the voice of conscience. We will rid the world of nuclear weapons. And when we do it will be because of people like you. The world owes you its gratitude.”


    At our Board meetings we have been encouraging him to speak out and take actions to implement the rhetoric. He has recently:



    • Visited Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Semipalatinsk as the first UNSG to do so;

    • Convened a Nuclear Security Summit and a High level meeting to revitalize the Conference on Disarmament in September 2010;

    • Addressed the Mayors for Peace and the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament Panels at the NPT;

    • Been asked to facilitate a Conference on Middle East zone free of all WMD in 2012;

    • Opened exhibitions promoting disarmament in the UN, eg CTBTO, photo exhibition from Japanese hibakusha; and 

    • Promoted  Disarmament and Non Proliferation Education.

    Last year the Board reviewed the United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-proliferation Education which was adopted by consensus in the General Assembly in 2002. The Study requested the Secretary-General to prepare biennial reports to submit to the Assembly.  It was prepared by ten government experts with input from UN international organisations and agencies such as the IAEA, OPCW, UNIDIR, UNESCO, UNICEF, CTBTO, UNIFEM and the UNU.


    The Study included 34 far-reaching recommendations including one which encourages municipal leaders, working with citizen groups, “to establish peace cities, as part of the UNESCO Cities for Peace network, through, for example, the creation of peace museums, peace parks, websites, and production of booklets on peacemakers and peacemaking.”


    This recommendation provides a wonderful opportunity for the fast-growing Mayors for Peace network to declare Peace Cities and educate local citizens and policy makers about nuclear disarmament. The Exhibition organised by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been travelling all over the world – and was recently highlighted during a Press conference with Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange in London. In my own country, it has been shown in sixteen cities, and smaller photos displayed in many schools to mark Peace Week.  There have also been very successful exhibitions on Gandhi and Depleted Uranium munitions.


    The twentieth anniversary of the passing of New Zealand’s historic nuclear free legislation in 2007 provided another opportunity for a major exhibition which showcased iconic peace movement memorabilia and highlighted the arguments challenging nuclear deterrence. The exhibition included the original 1963 petition calling for a Southern Hemisphere nuclear free zone, banners, posters, stickers, badges, photos, magazines, stamps, artwork and music. David Lange’s famous Oxford Union debate –in which he rubbishes nuclear deterrence – was available in the red phone box! There was also memorabilia commemorating the World Court Project which began in Christchurch.


    On the anniversary of the legislation many of our elected representatives from all political parties joined together on the steps of parliament wearing ‘nuclear free nation’ tee shirts and badges. Some of them, including the former Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, had been members of the Peace Squadrons which had taken non-violent direct action in small boats to try and prevent US nuclear powered and probably armed vessels entering New Zealand ports during the mid 1970s and early 1980s. The politicians then returned to Parliament House to pass a unanimous resolution, resolving that New Zealand should continue to work for a nuclear weapon free world. 


    Mayors for Peace


    The Mayors for Peace movement is led by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1995 they addressed the International Court of Justice to present the views of the nuclear bomb victims of their cities.  Following the World Court Opinion in 1996, which called on all states ‘to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiation on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects’, they were inspired to renew their call for nuclear abolition and begin a membership drive internationally. To mark the 10th anniversary of the Court’s Opinion in 2006, Mayors for Peace launched the Good Faith Challenge reaffirming the meaning and importance of the World Court opinion.


    At the city level, Mayors for Peace has launched the Cities Are Not Targets project. This encourages and assists cities and municipal associations in demanding assurances from nuclear-weapon states that cities are not and will not be targeted for nuclear attack. To quote the Mayors: Cities are homes and offices. They are not legitimate targets for bombs. To obliterate a city for any reason whatsoever is an illegal, immoral crime against humanity and not to be tolerated.


    Membership in Mayors for Peace has grown exponentially in the last few years.  There are now 4,515 members in 150 countries and regions. The 104 capital cities, include the NWS of Russia (34), China (7), France (134), UK (65), India (16), Pakistan (13) and Israel (55). Japan leads with 901 members, the US has 168 members (including Los Angeles, Chicago and Boston) and Australia with 72. The capital cities of key NATO allies such as Germany (371 cities), Belgium (355), Spain (296), Italy (376), Turkey (11), Greece (30), Netherlands (55), Canada (90), Czechoslovakia (28) and Norway (88) are also signed up.  Citizens in these cities and countries have a special responsibility to challenge their local councils to push their governments to reflect public opinion in support of nuclear abolition.


    One of the recommendations of the UN Study on Disarmament Education was to include NGOs (including Mayors) and politicians, on government delegations to UN disarmament conferences.  New Zealand has done this regularly since 1985 and last year included the chair of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament, and a youth worker in our organisation as full members of their delegation to the NPT Review Conference. 


    Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament


    In 2001, the Middle Powers Initiative established the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament. It was recently renamed Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament and has over 780 members in 80 countries.   PNND has a regular newsletter, and the website is available in 12 languages. A few years ago its coordinator, fellow New Zealander Alyn Ware, produced a briefing book on disarmament which was distributed to all PNND and Mayors for Peace members, and all 550 members of the US Congress. This formidable network is now having a strong impact on government disarmament policies in key nuclear allied states where they regularly debate about nuclear deterrence.


    In February 2010 the UNSG, at PNND’s instigation, sent a letter to all parliaments calling for action on his Five Point plan. PNND launched a campaign of support resulting in resolutions being adopted in the European Parliament; the national parliaments of Austria, Bangladesh, Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Italy, New Zealand and Norway; and the Inter-Parliamentary Union which represents 152 parliaments (including France, Russia and the United Kingdom). There has also been support from the 3rd World Conference of Speakers of Parliament and a group of Nobel Laureates. Cross party coalitions of politicians in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey have signed a letter to President Obama calling for removal of US tactical nuclear weapons from their soil. 


    Reports to the UN Secretary General on Disarmament Education


    Every two years governments and NGOs report to the UNSG about disarmament education activities in their countries.   In Canada the government has helped fund the extremely popular Reaching Critical Will website coordinated by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and the World Without Weapons website which provides a Teacher’s Guide and Student’s Manual for Secondary School Grades educating youth about disarmament, non-proliferation, landmines, SALW and human security issues.


    Japan supports UN Disarmament Fellowship Programmes for government officials. It has held regional disarmament conferences since 1989 and published a booklet on Disarmament Policy in Japanese and English.


    Sweden, like New Zealand (NZ), gives support to disarmament education (DE) activities by NGOs.  The NZ Ministry of Education distributed a Pamphlet on peace education to every school and the government supports Model UN Assemblies and gives regular briefings to NGOs. The Disarmament Education UN Implementation Fund  helps fund NGOs to implement the Study’s recommendations, such as the creation of Peace Cities, Museum exhibitions, and the production of educational material for schools, politicians and university students. NZ regularly includes NGO advisers on delegations to UN meetings on Landmines, Small Arms and nuclear weapons.  The Peace and Disarmament Education Trust  helps fund post-graduate scholarships for research on disarmament issues.


    The Russian government helps fund academic institutions and NGOs to develop programmes and train specialists in disarmament education. Higher Education institutes have included a new speciality ‘Security and Non Proliferation of nuclear materials’. The PIR centre gives training for experts in relevant government ministries and has developed a manual on nuclear Non Proliferation which has been confirmed as a textbook for tertiary institutions.


    Venezuela is setting up mass literacy campaigns to help prevent international trafficking in small arms and light weapons. Its constitution includes the fundamental values of ‘peace, integration, rejection of war, peaceful dispute settlement and establishing a fairer and more balanced world based on respect for cultural, ethnic and gender diversity.’ Bolivia also has a ‘profound commitment to peace’ arguing that all problems between States should be resolved through dialogue and mutual understanding. Mauritius has no history of war or civil insurrection and does not hold large stocks of arms and ammunitions. 


    Cambodia has introduced a number of activities, laws and regulations such as providing training to technical military staff to enable them to safely control and store weapons and ammunition. It created a national committee on weapons and ammunition in 2006. By May 2008, in collaboration with Japan and EU, they destroyed over 212,735 units of arms.


    Burundi’s Ministry of Defence has established a strict documentation mechanism for the verification and control of legally held small arms.  Qatar created the National Committee for the Prohibition of Weapons which includes a resolution to create and implement programmes to raise awareness of international arms control treaties.


    Spain teaches disarmament education at all levels in the Ministry of Defence and the government regularly participates in seminars, lectures or post-graduate studies on disarmament education with the Spanish Strategic Studies Institute and the Centre for Advanced national Defence Studies.


    UN Agencies


    The revamped UNODA website  has a special section devoted to disarmament education. It links UN agencies focusing on UNDE and some NGO initiatives including films, teacher resources and other publications. 


    The UN CyberSchoolBus site  has been named as one of the 101 best websites for teachers among 25 other complimentary reviews and prestigious awards. It is in 6 languages and is linked to a range of excellent websites such as the Model UN HQ, Peace Education,  and Voices of Youth. It has some examples of games and model units for teachers.


    However one of the main areas where little has been done over the decade is the creation of effective computer and video games which teach non-violence and disarmament.  The interactive media Global Platform aggregate audience of over 550 million has huge educational possibilities especially for youth.  The UN Study recommended (No 18) that ‘efforts should be made by educators, parents and the business community devise and produce toys, computer games and videos that engender such attitudes’ (ie values that reject violence, resolve conflicts peacefully and sustain a culture of peace).


    Youth


    It is exciting to see young people emerging as leaders in disarmament. There were over 500 young people at the 2010 NPT Review Conference.  The NPT-TV was run by the Students Peace Bureau in Germany, and Disarm TV is a youth-led and produced citizen journalism project aimed at empowering young people as grassroots reporters and peer educators on the nuclear weapons issue. There were simulations for negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention, organised by the European youth network Ban all Nukes generation (BANg) and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists against Proliferation (INESAP), held every day which were observed by seasoned diplomats.  


    The Million Pleas video, started by a group of school children from Hiroshima, is addressed to the 9 nuclear weapon states. They are asking people all over the globe to upload a video clip of themselves saying the word “please”. The “pleases” will then be edited into a long virtual chain letter, which will act as a petition to abolish nuclear weapons, worldwide. It is one of the many exciting campaigns being organised by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) based in Australia.


    The International Network of Emerging Nuclear Specialists was established by a group of  young policy specialists concerned that constructive dialogue was largely absent from the ‘nuclear’ debate. They seek to include parties from across these fields and they will facilitate this dialogue.


    In October 2010 the Youth Section of Religions for Peace presented a petition to UN High Representative for Disarmament  calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons – signed by over 20 million people. The petition is part of the Arms Down Campaign for Shared Security, and also calls for a reallocation of 10% of global military spending towards meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015.


    UN Focus


    I would like to finish by giving a couple of other examples of how the United Nations can create a forum and focus for healing, peace and disarmament.  In October 2000, after intense activity by five leading international NGOs working with UNIFEM, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. A landmark victory, this reaffirmed the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, peace negotiations, peace-building, peacekeeping, humanitarian response and post-conflict reconstruction. It also stressed the importance of their equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security.  The follow up Security Council resolutions 1820, 1888 and 1889, empowered States to include more women in key decision making positions.  Last October the UN organised a ministerial review conference on women, peace and security to mark the 10th anniversary of Resolution 1325.
    UN Days for Peace and Non-Violence are focal points for educating the general public. The UN International Day of Peace, 21 September, is observed annually as a ‘day of global ceasefire and non-violence’. It provides an opportunity for individuals, organisations and nations to create practical acts of Peace on a shared date. It also highlights the Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001 to 2010. Their website contains many exciting examples of young and old, rich and poor from all difference religions and cultures working together to celebrate peace. 


    Even the UNSG got in on the act using the latest technology to get his message out. On 13 June 2009, he launched a multiplatform campaign under the WMD-We Must Disarm slogan to mark the 100 day countdown to the International Day. He called for governments and citizens to focus on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and used Twitter, Facebook and MySpace to raise awareness particularly among young people. 


    Last year 29 August was named the International Day Against Nuclear Tests   – which gives an opportunity to focus on the ongoing effects of nuclear tests on existing and future generations.  This month the Japanese Peace Boat  hosted nine hibakusha recently appointed by Japan as “Special Communicators for a World Without Nuclear Weapons” together with five Tahitians working on the impact of French nuclear testing, plus five Japanese high school student Peace Ambassadors and four Aboriginal women from uranium mining affected areas in Australia.  The Boat visited Tahiti where the students learned about the ongoing impact of French nuclear testing.


    On 2 October 2009 (UN International Day for Non-Violence and Gandhi’s birthday) the World March for Peace and Non-Violence was launched in New Zealand to mark its position as the country at the top of the Global Peace Index. It attracted thousands of endorsements from former and current Presidents, Prime Ministers, politicians, Mayors, Nobel Laureates, celebrities, musicians, artists and leading NGOs from all over the world. Its colourful website in 30 languages covers the march through 90 countries over six continents in 90 days.  The UNSG met with the group’s leaders because they were promoting his 5 point plan for nuclear disarmament.


    It is my firm belief that education is the key to changing mindsets and mobilising people to take action.  In the past few years we have seen the impact of leadership from the UNSG and retired military and politicians. But still the political will is weak and even Obama, with his fine rhetoric of nuclear abolition, is now saying he may not see nuclear weapons abolished in his lifetime.
    It is indeed encouraging that 140 countries now support the UNSG’s Five Point Plan. However, he felt compelled to issue this challenge to the diplomats and government leaders at the NPT: 


    “…we have a choice: to leave a legacy of fear and inaction, or to act, with vision and courage and leadership…..  we can, and must, do better.”


    I know we can do better. We must keep up the momentum towards nuclear abolition. Whatever Obama thinks, the ordinary people of the world will make it happen in our lifetime. Future grandchildren of mine will be born into a world free of nuclear weapons. Together we can and must achieve this for all of humanity.

  • Answering Bolton and Yoo: New START Will Strengthen U.S. National Security

    Two staunch ideologues who served in the George W. Bush administration, John Bolton and John Yoo, ask rhetorically in a New York Times opinion piece, “Why Rush to Cut Nukes?”  Bolton, a recess appointment as United Nations Ambassador under Bush II, never met an arms limitation agreement that he supported.  Yoo, the lawyer who wrote memos supporting the legality of water boarding under international law (not a very favorable prospect for captured U.S. soldiers), worked in Bush II’s Justice Department.  Bolton and Yoo can find no good reason to support the New START agreement with the Russians, arguing that without amendments it will weaken “our national defense.”  

    Let me answer the question posed in the title of their article.  The Senate should support and ratify this treaty because it will strengthen U.S. national security by:

    • reducing the size of the bloated nuclear arsenals in both countries, creating a new lower level from which to make further reductions;
    • reinstating verification procedures that ended with the expiration of the first START agreement in December 2009;
    • building confidence in the Russians that we stand behind our agreements; and
    • sending a signal to the rest of the world that we are taking steps to fulfill our legal commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    The downsides of failing to ratify the treaty would be to remove restraints on the size of the Russian arsenal, forego inspection and verification of the Russian arsenal, undermine Russian confidence in U.S. commitments, and encourage further nuclear proliferation by other countries thereby increasing the possibilities of nuclear terrorism. Further, if the treaty is not ratified before the new Congress is seated in January 2011, its future ratification will be far more difficult.

    What do Bolton and Yoo say they want?  First, to remove language in the treaty’s preamble, which is not legally binding, that says there is an “interrelationship” between nuclear weapons and defensive systems.  That language only recognizes a reality.  Of course, there is a relationship between missiles and missile defenses.  Second, they don’t want the U.S. to be limited in putting conventional weapons on formerly nuclear launch systems.  But that is a price, and a fair one, that each side will pay for lowering the other side’s nuclear capabilities.  Third, they want a Congressional act for the financing, testing and development of new U.S. warhead designs before the treaty is ratified.  In other words, they want guarantees that the U.S. nuclear arsenal will be modernized.  They seek long-term reliance on the U.S. nuclear threat, but this means that U.S. citizens will also remain under nuclear threat for the long-term.

    Bolton and Yoo are an interesting pair.  The first would lop ten floors off the United Nations, the second do away with the laws of war when they aren’t convenient.  Do they deserve their own opinions?  Of course.  Do their opinions make any sense?  Only in the context of the American exceptionalism and militarism that were the trademarks of the Bush II administration and have done so much to weaken the spirit, values and resources of the country while continuing to haunt us in our aggressive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

    One must wonder what possessed the New York Times to publish their rantings.  Additionally, using the word “Nukes” in the title suggests somehow that nuclear weapons are cute enough to have nicknames and not a serious threat to the very existence of civilization.  That Bolton and Yoo could rise to high positions in our country is a sad commentary on the country, but perhaps understandable in the context of the Bush II administration’s persistent flouting of international law.  That the New York Times would find sufficient merit in their discredited opinions to publish their article is an even sadder commentary on the editorial integrity of one of the country’s most respected newspapers.

  • 2010 United Nations Day Keynote Address

    Thank you to the San Francisco Chapter of the United Nations Association for organizing this celebration of the 65th anniversary of the United Nations and for bringing together such an impressive group of leaders for this event.  Thank you also to Soka Gakkai International for hosting this event in your Ikeda Auditorium.  

    I want to draw attention to the beauty of the flower arrangements on the dais.  They are filled with sunflowers, and sunflowers are the universal symbol of a world without nuclear weapons.  Whenever you see a sunflower, I hope you will think of the need to work for a world free of nuclear weapons.  Sunflowers are beautiful, natural and nutritious.  They turn toward the sun.  They stand in stark contrast to the manmade missiles that threaten death and destruction on a massive scale.  Sunflowers remind us of the importance of preserving the natural beauty of our planet and ending the manmade threats of massive annihilation with which we currently live.

    My subject today is nuclear disarmament.  The United Nations Charter was signed on June 23, 1945.  The first nuclear weapon was tested successfully just over three weeks later on July 16, 1945.  The United Nations sought to save the world from the “scourge of war,” among other high ideals.  Nuclear weapons threatened to destroy the world.

    The subject of nuclear weapons is one that many people, perhaps most, understandably would like to put out of their minds.  Assuring a human future demands that we resist that temptation.

    We know that a single nuclear weapon can destroy a city and a few nuclear weapons can destroy a country.   Scientists also tell us that an exchange of 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on cities, such as could occur between India and Pakistan, could result in a billion fatalities, due to blockage of sunlight and crop failures leading to mass starvation, in addition to the blast, fire and radiation.  A full scale nuclear war could destroy the human species and most complex forms of life on Earth.  

    Given such high stakes, why do we tolerate nuclear weapons?  I believe that there are two major reasons.  First, we have been misled to believe that nuclear weapons actually protect their possessors.  They do not.  These weapons can be used to threaten retaliation, to retaliate or to attack preventively in a first-strike, but they cannot protect.  

    Second, we have grown far too complacent about these devices of mass annihilation over the period of 65 years since their last use in warfare.  But the odds of catastrophe are too high for complacency.  According to Stanford Professor Emeritus Martin Hellman, an expert in risk analysis, a child born today has at least a ten percent chance over the course of his or her expected lifetime of dying in a nuclear attack and possibly as high as a fifty percent chance.  These are clearly unacceptable odds.

    Any use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity.  These weapons cannot discriminate between soldiers and civilians, and the unnecessary suffering they cause is virtually boundless and can continue through generations.  The International Court of Justice, in its 1996 landmark Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, described the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons as “their capacity to cause untold human suffering, and their ability to cause damage to generations to come.”  The Court wrote: “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time.  They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.”

    The use, even the threat of use, of nuclear weapons is morally abhorrent.  The possession of nuclear weapons should be taboo.  No country has the right to possess weapons that could destroy our species and much of life.  They threaten our true inalienable rights – as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – to life, liberty and security of person.  Nuclear weapons are the negation of these rights.  They are an extreme manifestation of fear and militarism, reflecting the most destructive elements of the human spirit.

    The generations who are alive today on the planet are challenged by the imperative to end the nuclear weapons era and strengthen our common efforts for achieving the global good as reflected in the eight Millennium Development Goals.  This will require leadership.  At present, this leadership has resided primarily with the United Nations and with civil society organizations.  The UN and its supporting civil society organizations have provided vision and direction for social responsibility on disarmament, demilitarization and improving the lives of the world’s people.  

    The key to achieving a world without nuclear weapons lies in a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  But agreement on such a treaty will require a far greater commitment by the governments of the world, including the nine nuclear weapon states.  The United States, as the most powerful of these governments, will need to be pushed from below by its citizens.  Each of us needs to embrace this issue, along with whatever other issues move us to action.  It is an issue on which the future of humanity and life rest.  

    I’d like to share with you a reflection from my new book, God’s Tears, Reflections on the Atomic Bombs Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It is called, “The Final Period?”

    The Final Period?

    “Scientists tell us that the universe was created with a “Big Bang” some 15 billion years ago.  To represent this enormous stretch of time, we can imagine a 15,000 page book.  It would be a very large and heavy book, some 50 times larger than a normal book.  In this book, each page would represent one million years in the history of the universe.  If there were 1,000 words on each page, each word would represent 1,000 years.  

    “Most of the book would be about the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang.  Our solar system would not occur in this history of the universe until page 10,500.  It would take another 500 pages until the first primitive forms of life occurred on Earth some four billion years ago.  The slow evolution of life would occupy the book nearly to its end.  It would not be until page 14,997 that human-like creatures would appear on the planet, and it would not be until just ten words from the end of page 15,000 that human civilization would make its appearance.  

    “The Nuclear Age, which began in 1945, would be represented by the final period, the punctuation mark on the last page of the 15,000 page book.  This small mark at the end of the volume indicates where we are today: inheritors of a 15 billion year history with the capacity to destroy ourselves and most other forms of life with our technological achievements.  It is up to us to assure that the page is turned, and that we move safely into the future, free from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all forms of life.”

    Let me conclude with these thoughts: As the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have warned us over and over, “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist.”  We must choose, and we are fortunate that we still have a choice.  In another great war, such as World War II, the war that gave birth to both nuclear weapons and the United Nations, that choice could be foreclosed.  Or, it could be foreclosed in less dramatic ways, by a nuclear accident or nuclear terrorism.  

    Now, today, we have the opportunity to turn the page of that great book that documents the development of our universe, the evolution of life and the history of humankind.  Let us seize that opportunity with all our hearts and all our capacities by working to abolish nuclear weapons, strengthen the United Nations and international law, and put the missing Millennium Development Goal, disarmament, to work in achieving the elimination of poverty and hunger, and the promotion of education, health care, opportunity and hope for all of the world’s people.

  • Nuclear Dangers and Opportunities in the Middle East

    Iran’s uranium enrichment program has drawn much criticism, and there has been talk in both Israel and the United States of possible attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities.  The drift toward a military solution seems to be gathering an alarming momentum, with little public discussion of alternative approaches in the mainstream US media.  There would likely be very heavy costs associated with carrying out such attacks.

    Iranian leaders have a variety of instruments available for retaliation, and there is little reason to think that these would not be used. It is highly probable that Israel would be attacked in response by Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which have the capabilities to inflict serious damage. Even more damage could be done by Iran itself, which is developing long-range delivery capacities by way of advanced missile technology and a type of bomb-carrying drone aircraft.   

    There exists also the Iranian option to block passage through the Strait of Hormuz through which two-thirds of the world’s imported oil travels, undoubtedly producing supply shortages, a spike in prices, long gas lines in countries around the world, and global economic chaos.  Beyond this, there are a variety of unresolved conflicts in the region that could be easily inflamed by Iranian interventions, most obviously Iraq.   

    Attacks against Iran, as a non-defensive recourse to force, would violate international law and the UN Charter. Force is only lawful in international conflict situations if used as self-defense in response to a prior armed attack. The core Charter commitment in Article 2(4) prohibits threats as well as uses of force.  By that standard, both Israel and the United States, by their threats alone, may already be viewed as law-breakers.  The actual use of force would leave no doubt.

        A far better option than attacking Iran would be attempting to negotiate a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. There is widespread support for this initiative among the governments in the region and the world.  It was a priority goal agreed to by consensus at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  But there is one large catch that has so far been a decisive inhibitor: Israel is unalterably opposed, as the establishment of the zone would require Israel to dismantle its own nuclear weapons arsenal.

    Obviously, the idea of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone has little regional appeal if it does not include Israel.  Israel’s insistence on retaining nuclear weapons while being ready to wage a war, with menacing repercussions, to prevent Iran from acquiring such weaponry is expressive of the deeply troubling double standards that are an overall feature of the nonproliferation regime.

    A Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone would immediately improve overall regional stability and, as well, take account of the prospect of many Arab countries poised to embark on nuclear energy programs of their own. Indeed, without such a zone, there is a substantial possibility of a regional nuclear arms race that would tempt countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, as well as Iran, to have the supposed deterrent benefits of a nuclear arsenal.

    A Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone that includes all the countries of the region is an issue that demands U.S. leadership.  Only the United States has the leverage and stature to bring the diverse cast of regional actors to the negotiating table to make the needed effort to avert war. There can be no advance assurances that such a diplomatic initiative would succeed, but to fail to try would be lamentable.

  • Address at Hiroshima Peace Park

    Hiroshima no minasama konichiwa. Ohayo gozaimasu.

    We are here, on hallowed ground, to see, to feel, to absorb and reflect.

    I am honored to be the first UN Secretary-General to take part in this Peace Memorial Ceremony on the 65th anniversary of this tragic day. And I am deeply moved.

    When the atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I was one year old. Only later in life, could I begin to understand the full dimension of all that happened here. As a young boy, I lived through the Korean War. One of my earliest memories is marching along a muddy road into the mountains, my village burning behind me. All those lives lost, families destroyed — so much sadness. Ever since, I have devoted my life to peace. It has brought me here today.

    Watakushiwa sekai heiwa no tameni Hiroshima ni mairimashita.

    We gather to pay our solemn respects to those who perished, sixty-five years ago, and to the many more whose lives forever changed. Life is short, but memory is long.

    For many of you, that day endures, as vivid as the white light that seared the sky, as dark as the black rains that followed. To you, I offer a message of hope. To all of you, I offer my message of peace. A more peaceful world can be ours. You are helping to make it happen. You, the survivors, who inspired us with your courage and fortitude. You, the next generations, the young generation, striving for a better day.

    Together, you have made Hiroshima an epicentre of peace. Together, we are on a journey from ground zero to Global Zero ? a world free of weapons of mass destruction. That is the only sane path to a safer world. For as long as nuclear weapons exist, we will live under a nuclear shadow.

    And that is why I have made nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation a top priority for the United Nations – and put forward a five-point plan.

    Our moment has come. Everywhere, we find new friends and allies. We see new leadership from the most powerful nations. We see new engagement in the UN Security Council. We see new energy from civil society. Russia and the United States have a new START treaty. We made important progress at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington last April, which we will build upon in Korea.

    We must keep up the momentum. In September, I will convene a high-level meeting in support of the work of the Conference on Disarmament at the United Nations. We will push for negotiations towards nuclear disarmament. A Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Disarmament education in our schools — including translating the testimonies of the survivors in the world’s major languages. We must teach an elemental truth: that status and prestige belong not to those who possess nuclear weapons, but to those who reject them.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    Sixty-five years ago, the fires of hell descended upon this place. Today, one fire burns, here in this Peace Park. That is the Flame of Peace ? a flame that will remain lit until nuclear weapons are no more. Together, let us work for that day ? in our lifetime, in the lifetimes of the survivors. Together, let us put out the last fire of Hiroshima. Let us replace that flame with the light of hope. Let us realize our dream of a world free of nuclear weapons so that our children and all succeeding generations can live in freedom, security and peace.

    Thank you. Domo arigato gozaimasu.

  • Message to Hiroshima Conference

    I am pleased to greet all the participants in the Hiroshima Conference for the Total Abolition of Nuclear Weapons by 2020.

    Nuclear disarmament is often dismissed as a dream, when the real fantasies are the claims that nuclear weapons guarantee security or increase a country’s status and prestige. The more often countries make such claims, the more likely it will be that others will adopt the same approach. The result will be insecurity for all. Let us be clear: the only guarantee of safety, and the only sure protection against the use of such weapons, is their elimination.

    I thank Mayors for Peace helping to point the way to a world free of nuclear threats. Most of the world’s population today lives in cities. If the mayors of the world are uniting, the world is uniting.

    My own five point plan, which I put forward in October 2008 offers a practical approach to the elimination of such weapons, including support for the idea of a nuclear weapons convention. We must also build on the momentum generated by the successful outcome of this year’s NPT Review Conference.

    The timeline in the 2020 Vision Campaign to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons is especially important. I have deep admiration for the hibakushas and their determination to tell the world about their experience of the horrors of nuclear weapons.

    I urge all leaders, especially those of the nuclear-weapon States, to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to see firsthand the drastic reality caused by nuclear war. I myself will go there in ten days’ time for this year’s peace memorial ceremony, at which I will appeal for urgent steps to advance the disarmament agenda.

    I urge you all to intensify your efforts even further. Let us work toward the day when governments no longer have a choice but to respond to the will of the people for a nuclear-free world. Thank you all for your commitment to this great cause.

  • The 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

    The principal message from the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, which concluded on May 28, 2010, is that the nuclear weapon states are still on a Snail Plan for eliminating their nuclear arsenals – moving slowly and not recognizing the vulnerability of their thin shells.  If a sense of urgency is to be instilled in the nuclear disarmament process, the people will need to press their leaders from below. 

    At five-year intervals, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty meet for a Review Conference.  In 1995, on the 25th anniversary of the treaty, the parties extended the treaty indefinitely, with promises from the nuclear weapon states that they would pursue “systematic and progressive efforts” for nuclear disarmament.  Five years later, in 2000, the parties to the treaty agreed upon 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament.  These included an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament….” 

    Five years later, however, the parties were deadlocked, could not agree on a Final Document, and the 2005 NPT Review Conference ended in failure.  Since that time, the US has elected a new president, one who has expressed a vision of seeking “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  President Obama’s vision brought hope to the non-nuclear weapon states that are parties to the treaty that the 2010 Review Conference would produce a positive outcome. 

    The treaty is often referred to as having three significant pillars: nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear disarmament, and assistance with peaceful nuclear energy.  The principal tension among the parties to the treaty is over whether the nuclear weapon states have made sufficient progress toward their nuclear disarmament obligations.

    The initial draft Report of Main Committee I (on nuclear disarmament), which was released on May 14, contained some very promising text.  It called for “the need to implement Article VI [requiring nuclear disarmament] within a timebound framework.”  It has long been a goal of the non-nuclear weapon states to achieve a timebound commitment to nuclear disarmament from the nuclear weapon states.  Further, the draft called for the nuclear weapon states to “convene consultations not later than 2011 to accelerate concrete progress on nuclear disarmament….”

    In addition, this draft contained a provision inviting the Secretary-General of the United Nations “to convene an international conference in 2014 to consider ways and means to agree on a roadmap for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe, including by means of a universal, legal instrument.” 

    These provisions raised hopes among representatives of non-nuclear weapon states and civil society organizations that real progress on nuclear disarmament would come from the NPT Review Conference.  Unfortunately, this was not to be.  The Final Document of the Review Conference requires consensus from all parties, and consensus agreements tend to result in a watering down of key provisions.  Many of the key disarmament provisions were diluted by the US, UK, France and Russia. 

    Instead of a commitment to nuclear disarmament within a timebound framework, the Final Document simply affirmed that “the final phase of the nuclear disarmament process should be pursued within an agreed legal framework, which a majority of States parties believe should include specified timelines.”  [Emphasis added.]  In fact, the belief of the majority of states was clearly overridden by the nuclear weapon states, which did not want to be bound by timelines. 

    Many of the main nuclear disarmament points in the Final Document involved no more than the conference taking note of something, without commitment.  For example, “The Conference notes the proposals for nuclear disarmament of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to inter alia consider negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention or agreement on a framework of separate mutually reinforcing instruments, backed by a strong system of verification.”  This strong proposal by the UN Secretary-General would seem worthy of strong support rather than simply taking note. 

    Instead of committing to convene an international conference for nuclear disarmament in 2014, the Final Document called upon the nuclear weapon states only to report back on their progress in achieving a series of steps in 2014.  It further called upon the 2015 NPT Review Conference “to take stock and consider the next steps of the full implementation” of the Article VI disarmament obligation. 

    The Final Document of the Review Conference gave strong affirmation to the spread of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  While this is in accord with the treaty provisions referring to nuclear energy as an “inalienable right,” it would increase the possibilities of nuclear materials being used for weapons – as was the case with Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa – and would thus complicate the likelihood of actually achieving nuclear disarmament. 

    One very positive outcome of the Review Conference was its endorsement of practical steps to achieve a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.  The Final Document called upon the UN Secretary-General, along with others, to convene a regional conference in 2012 for the establishment of a “Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.”

    The 2010 NPT Review Conference resulted in a reaffirmation by the nuclear weapon states of their “unequivocal undertaking to accomplish…the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”  In the end, the Final Document was largely aspirational.  It brought the parties back to where they stood in the year 2000, but provided few specific guidelines for success to measure progress in 2015.  One such measure, albeit a difficult one, will be progress toward the attainment of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.

    Most of the people of the world view the need to eliminate nuclear weapons, weapons capable of destroying civilization and ending most complex life on Earth, as urgent.  Clearly, though, that sense of urgency has not reached the upper levels of political authority in the nuclear weapon states.  The people throughout the world, and particularly those in the nuclear weapon states, will have to continue speaking out ever more forcibly in an attempt to move their governments to serious action.