Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: United Nations

NAPF Report on the 2010 NPT Review Conference and Related Events
The 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference comes at a key time for the future of nuclear disarmament. The 2005 NPT Review Conference ended in failure. The nuclear weapon states have yet to fulfill their Article VI obligations to negotiate in “good faith” for complete nuclear disarmament in the 40 years since the NPT entered into force in 1970.

Despite these failures, there are signs of hope. The New START agreement recently signed by the US and Russia represents the beginning of a new era of bilateral cooperation. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has repeatedly stated his uncompromising dedication to achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons. Most important, support for a world without nuclear weapons is gaining momentum among the people of the world, as represented by polling data and by the 1,700 NGO delegates attending NPT proceedings at the United Nations this year.

David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and Rick Wayman, NAPF Director of Programs, traveled to New York to take part in many events around the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Conference

On Friday, April 30, Rick Wayman attended the Second Conference of States Parties and Signatories to Treaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Mongolia. He attended as a NGO observer at the invitation of the Chilean UN Mission.

Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) cover all of Antarctica, Latin America, the South Pacific, Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Mongolia. A consistent theme throughout the conference was support for a Middle East NWFZ, which many believe will provide a needed measure of security in a volatile and dangerous region of the world.

Speakers, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte and Mayor of Hiroshima Tadatoshi Akiba affirmed their strong support for the continued expansion of NWFZs around the world as a welcome step toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

International Conference for Peace and Disarmament

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, together with many organizations around the world, co-organized a weekend conference at historic Riverside Church in New York City. Over 1,000 people from 25 countries participated in workshops and plenary sessions designed to educate, inspire and build lasting partnerships among people dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons.

The Foundation organized a workshop on May 1 together with the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy entitled Debunking Nuclear Deterrence. The workshop, moderated by Acronym’s Executive Director Rebecca Johnson, featured NAPF President David Krieger; Randy Rydell, Senior Political Affairs Officer at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs; and retired British Navy Commander Robert Green.

David Krieger argued that nuclear deterrence is a theory that cannot be proven. The assumptions on which nuclear deterrence are based, such as leaders acting rationally at all times, are themselves irrational and dangerous. Randy Rydell encouraged members of the audience to examine the logic and rationality of nuclear deterrence proponents and the motivations they have for using this flawed concept. Commander Robert Green discussed the indoctrination that he experienced as a nuclear weapons commander in the British Navy. He called nuclear deterrence “state-sponsored nuclear terrorism,” “unlawful,” and detrimental to national and global security.

In the afternoon, there was an emotional workshop featuring the testimony of survivors of nuclear weapon explosions. Junko Kayashige, a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing who visited the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2008, recounted her experience of the atomic bombing and the great losses she suffered on August 6, 1945 and in subsequent years. Matashichi Oishi told the audience of over 300 people about his experience on a fishing boat in the Pacific Ocean on March 1, 1954. His boat was in the vicinity when the United States conducted its massive Bravo nuclear test. Fourteen of the 20 crew members on the boat died from radiation-related conditions. Abbacca Anjain Madison of the Marshall Islands told of the devastation brought to the islands by the hundreds of nuclear weapon tests the United States conducted in the area. Countless Marshallese have lost their livelihoods, land and lives at the hands of these nuclear tests. Claudia Peterson, a resident of southern Utah, told a heart wrenching story about the effects US nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site have had on her family. Parents, siblings and even her children have died due to the radiation that came from hundreds of nuclear tests in Nevada. To conclude her tearful speech, she said, “My story never changes; I just add more loved ones to it each time I tell it.”

Other workshops at the conference included “Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East,” “Youth Lobbying and Messaging,” “The Nuclear Cycle: The Negative Effects from Mining to Militarism,” “Modernization of the Nuclear Weapons Complex” and “Disarmament, Climate Change and Justice.”

The evening plenary session featured a keynote address by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The Secretary-General opened his speech by thanking the grassroots activists and NGO representatives in the audience for their strong commitment and leadership for nuclear disarmament. Mr. Ban reminded the audience that “from my first day in office as Secretary-General, I made clear that nuclear disarmament is my top priority.” He lamented that “the world is over-armed and peace is under-funded.” The Secretary-General concluded his speech with words of encouragement for those in attendance. He said, “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…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.” He was speaking to all of us committed to this goal.

March and Rally for Nuclear Abolition

On Sunday, May 2, over 15,000 people gathered in New York’s Times Square for a rally calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. They then marched to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, across the street from the United Nations, for a peace festival.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation distributed hundreds of briefing booklets and DVDs and talked to many Foundation members who made the trip to New York for this inspiring event.

Panel Discussion Inside the United Nations

On Monday, May 3, the Foundation organized a panel discussion entitled From Omnicide to Abolition: Shifting the Mindset. The panel, which took place on the first day of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, was designed to set a progressive and positive tone for the four-week conference. It stressed the omnicidal dangers of nuclear weapons as a motivating force to achieve progress toward a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

The event started out with a screening of the short video The Nuclear Family by Angela How. The video was the winner of the Foundation’s 2010 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest. All of the winning videos from the 2010 contest can be viewed here.

Speakers on the Foundation’s panel included NAPF President David Krieger, NAPF Associate Steven Starr, NAPF Associate Alice Slater, NAPF Associate Commander Robert Green and Kate Dewes. A report on the panel can be found here.

Action Inside the NPT Review Conference

At the same time as our panel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the plenary session. Among the proposals he made are:
- Evolve the NPT to the “DNPT” – the Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Treaty;
- Establish an independent group to oversee the disarmament process outlined in Article VI of the NPT;
- Introduce legally-binding comprehensive security guarantees to non-nuclear weapon states;
- Terminate all research and production of nuclear weapons worldwide;
- Explicitly outlaw the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and
- Implement the Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone as agreed at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.
Ahmadinejad was also critical of the United States and Israel during his speech, which resulted in many delegates walking out on his talk. The full text of his speech is available here.

On the afternoon of the first day of the Review Conference, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke. She was strong on non-proliferation initiatives such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, and promised further bilateral reductions with Russia. Clinton indicated that the US would seek to ratify the nuclear weapon-free zones in Africa and the South Pacific and was now ready to consult with other parties on the nuclear weapon-free zones in Central Asia and Southeast Asia. For the first time, the US revealed that the exact number of nuclear weapons in its deployed and reserve arsenal is 5,113 (plus “several thousand” more awaiting dismantlement). The full text of Secretary Clinton’s speech is available here. The document outlining the number of US nuclear weapons is available here.

The US delegation interacted much more with NGOs this year than in years past. They gave a major briefing on May 5 with Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher and other senior administration officials and answered questions after the briefing. David Krieger asked three questions:
1. How much plutonium and highly enriched uranium exists in the world, and how much remains “loose” after the accomplishments you described?
2. You describe the need for the US nuclear arsenal to be “safe, secure and effective.” I can understand the terms “safe” and “secure,” but what do you mean by the term “effective?”
3. Would you consider conducting an Environmental Impact Statement on the use of nuclear weapons to increase awareness among Americans of the potential damage that would be caused in order to increase support for the president’s goal of zero nuclear weapons?
Their answers were as follows, with Thomas D’Agostino responding to the first two questions and Assistant Secretary of State Tauscher responding to the third:
1. There is more nuclear material out there. That is why we need the rest of the world to join us in securing it.
2. “Effective” means that the weapon will work as designed.
3. We have no intention of doing this.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made himself available to various NGO events and was very strong in his commitment to nuclear disarmament. Mr. Ban spoke at events by Mayors for Peace, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization and hibakusha (survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings). As mentioned earlier, he also delivered the keynote address at the conference that the Foundation co-sponsored on May 1.

The Foundation’s NPT briefing booklet was distributed to all UN country missions one month before the start of the Review Conference. We also distributed copies of the briefing booklet to delegates during events and plenary meetings inside the UN during the Review Conference.

Greenwich Forum on War & Peace

On Wednesday, May 5, David and Rick traveled to Greenwich, CT at the invitation of the Greenwich Forum on War & Peace. To begin the evening, David and Rick met at an informal dinner with Board members of the Greenwich Forum to get to know one another and talk about issues of mutual interest. After the dinner, approximately 45 people at the Greenwich Library came to hear a lecture by David entitled Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Changing Our Modes of Thinking.

The lecture was followed by a lively question and answer session, which focused in part on perspectives on the decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. David challenged the conventional way the atomic bombings are taught in American schools; he said that typically Americans are taught to think of the bombs from above – that is, as a technological innovation that resulted in ending World War II in the Pacific. The Japanese, on the other hand, view the bombings from below – that is, the massive death and severe physical, psychological and environmental effects wrought upon those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the US atomic bombings in August 1945. David also encouraged greater US leadership to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

Nearly everyone in attendance picked up copies of Foundation materials, including the NPT briefing booklet, the 2009 annual report and the DVD.

Other Notable Events

A key outcome of the trip to New York for the Foundation was strengthening the ties we have with other NGOs. We strengthened our existing ties with groups such as the Middle Powers Initiative, Mayors for Peace, Abolition 2000, INES, INESAP, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and the World Future Council. We created stronger ties with many key NGOs including Peace Action, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and the Disarmament & Security Centre.

On May 5, David served as moderator on a panel organized by INES on nuclear weapons in Europe. Panelists included Dave Webb (UK), Peter Becker (Germany) and Yves-Jean Gallas (France).

On May 6, David and Rick had lunch with Foundation representatives Vernon Nichols and Masako London. The lunch was sponsored by Foundation supporters and UN representatives Frank and Nancy Colton, who were unable to attend due to health reasons.

On May 6, David participated in a meeting of the International Steering Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative. Rick represented the Foundation at the Abolition 2000 Global Council dinner and the Abolition 2000 Annual General Meeting.

During the conference, David did a television interview with NPT-TV, which can be viewed here and here.

The Foundation strengthened its ties with Commander Robert Green, a retired member of the British Royal Navy who was in charge of nuclear weapons. Green was a panelist at the Foundation’s workshop during the May 1 conference and again at the Foundation’s panel discussion at the UN on May 3. His new book, Security Without Nuclear Deterrence, was released during the first week of the Review Conference. Commander Green accepted the invitation to become an Associate of the Foundation.

Foundation Associates Jonathan Granoff, Alice Slater and Steven Starr were also active participants in panels and other activities at the 2010 Review Conference.

Conclusion

The NPT Review Conference will continue through May 28. There is no strong sense yet of the outcome, but there is a general sense of hopefulness that the outcome will be more positive than the failed 2005 Review Conference, and that perhaps countries will return to the 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

During the first week of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) Review Conference there was a much more positive tone than in previous
such conferences. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon participated in
many civil society events during the conference, continuing to shine a light on
the need for a concrete plan for nuclear disarmament. The United States was
also more forthcoming with information on its nuclear arsenal, specifically in
releasing details of the size of its nuclear arsenal (5,113 nuclear weapons
deployed and in reserve plus several thousand awaiting dismantlement).

The draft of the final document, to be released at the
conclusion of the conference on May 28, contains some highly promising
provisions. The draft document states, “The nuclear-weapon states shall convene
consultations not later than 2011 to accelerate concrete progress on nuclear
disarmament in a way that promotes international stability and is based on the
principle of undiminished security for all.”

The draft document continues, “Based on the outcome of these
consultations, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is invited 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.”

If these provisions make it into the final document of the
NPT conference, they could pave the way for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons
Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent
elimination of nuclear weapons – one of the goals long sought by the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation and other civil society organizations.
May 15, 2010
Speech to the International Conference for Peace and Disarmament
This is the transcript of a speech delivered by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the peace and disarmament conference co-organized by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and many other organizations around the world on May 1, 2010 at Riverside Church in New York City.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Reading the list of organizations and individuals with us this evening, I want to say what an honour it is to be here. I know of your hard work and dedication. I know how much you have sacrificed in standing for your principles and beliefs. I know how much courage it takes to speak out, to protest, to carry the banner of this most noble human aspiration … world peace. And so, most of all, I am here tonight to thank you.

Let me begin by saying how humbling it is to speak to you in this famous place, Riverside Church. It was here that Martin Luther King Junior spoke against the war in Vietnam. Nelson Mandela spoke here on his first visit to the United States after being freed from prison. Standing with you, looking out, I can see what they saw: a sea of committed women and men, who come from all corners to move the world. It reminds us that of what matters most in life… is not so much the message from the bully pulpit, but rather the movement from the pews. From people like you. And so I say: keep it up.

Our shared vision is within reach … a nuclear-free world. On the eve of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference … beginning on Monday … we know the world is watching. Let it heed our call: Disarm Now!

Ladies and gentlemen,

From my first day in office, I have made nuclear disarmament a top priority. Perhaps, in part, this deep personal commitment comes from my experience as a boy in Korea, growing up after the war. My school was rubble. There were no walls. We studied in the open air.

The United Nations rebuilt my country. I was lucky enough to receive a good education. But more than that, I learned about peace, solidarity and, above all, the power of community action. These values are not abstract principles to me. I owe my life to them. I try to embody them in all my work.

Just a few weeks ago, I travelled to Ground Zero — the former test site at Semipalatinsk, in Kazakhstan, where the Soviet Union detonated more than 450 nuclear explosions. It was strangely beautiful. The great green steppe reached as far as the eye could see. But of course, the eye does not immediately see the scope of the devastation. Vast areas where people still cannot go. Poisoned lakes and rivers. High rates of cancer and birth defects.

After independence, in 1991, Kazakhstan closed the site and banished nuclear weapons from its territory. Today, Semipalatinsk is a powerful symbol of hope … it is a new Ground Zero for disarmament, the birth-place of the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone.

In August, I will travel to another Ground Zero — Mayor Akiba’s proud city of Hiroshima. There, I will repeat our call for a nuclear free-world. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and especially the hibakusha – know too well the horror of nuclear war. It must never be repeated!

Yet 65 years later, the world still lives under a nuclear shadow. How long must we wait to rid ourselves of this threat? How long will we keep passing the problem to succeeding generations?

We here tonight know that it is time to end this senseless cycle. We know that nuclear disarmament is not a distant, unattainable dream. It is an urgent necessity, here and now. We are determined to achieve it. We have come close in the past.

Twenty-four years ago, in Reykjavik, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev came within a hair’s breath of agreeing to eliminate nuclear weapons. It was a dramatic reminder of how far we can go — as long as we have the vision and the will.

Today’s generation of nuclear negotiators must take a lesson from Reykjavik: Be bold. Think big … for it yields big results.

And that is why, again, we need people like you. People who understand that the world is over-armed and that peace is under-funded. People who understand that the time for change is now.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The NPT entered into force 40 years ago. Ever since, it has been the foundation of the non-proliferation regime and our efforts for nuclear disarmament. To quote you, Mr. Gerson: It is one of the seminal agreements of the 20th century. Let’s not forget. In 1963, experts predicted that there could be as many as 25 nuclear powers by the end of the last century. It did not happen, in large part because the NPT guided the world in the right direction.

Today, we have reason for renewed optimism. Global public opinion is swinging our way. Governments are looking at the issue with fresh eyes. Consider just the most recent events:
- Leading by example, the United States announced a review of its nuclear posture … forswearing the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, so long as they are in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- In Prague, President Obama and President Medvedev signed a new START treaty, accompanied by serious cuts in arsenals.
- In Washington, the leaders of 47 nations united in their efforts to keep nuclear weapons and materials out of the hands of terrorists.
- And on Monday, we hope to open a new chapter in the life of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2005, when leaders gathered for the last review of the NPT, the outcome did not match expectations. In plainer English, it failed — utterly. We cannot affor d to fail again. After all, there are more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals. Nuclear terrorism remains a real and present danger. There has been no progress in establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. The nuclear programs of Iran and the DPRK are of serious concern to global efforts to curb nuclear proliferation…

To deal with these and other issues, I have set out my own five-point action plan, and I thank you for your encouraging response. I especially welcome your support for the idea of concluding a Nuclear Weapon Convention. Article VI of the NPT requires the Parties to pursue negotiations on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under international control. These negotiations are long overdue. Next week, I will call on all countries – and most particularly the nuclear-weapon states – to fulfil this obligation. We should not have unrealistic expectations for the conference. But neither can we afford to lower our sights.

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.

Thank you.
May 1, 2010
A New Ground Zero

This article was originally published by the International Herald Tribune.

A few weeks ago, traveling in Kazakhstan, I had the sobering experience of standing at Ground Zero. This was the notorious test site at Semipalatinsk, where the Soviet Union detonated 456 nuclear weapons between 1947 and 1989.

Apart from a circle of massive concrete plinths, designed to measure the destructive power of the blasts, there was little on the vast and featureless steppe to distinguish this place. Yet for decades it was an epicenter of the Cold War — like similar sites in the United States, a threat to life on our planet. Its dark legacy endures: poisoned rivers and lakes, children suffering from cancer and birth defects.

Today, Semipalatinsk has become a powerful symbol of hope. On Aug. 29, 1991, shortly after independence, the president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, closed the site and abolished nuclear weapons. It was a tangible expression of a dream that has long eluded us — a world free of nuclear weapons.

Now, for the first time in a generation, we can be optimistic. On the day I visited Semipalatinsk, President Barack Obama announced a review of the United States’ nuclear posture. Leading by example, it renounced the development of new nuclear weapons and foreswore their first use against nations in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. Two days later, President Obama and the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitri Medvedev, signed a new START treaty in Prague — a fresh start on a truly noble aspiration.

Momentum is building around the world. Governments and civil society groups, often at odds, have begun working in common cause.

At the recent nuclear security summit in Washington, 47 world leaders agreed to do whatever is necessary to keep such weapons and materials safe. Their shared sense of urgency reflects an accepted reality. Nuclear terrorism is not a Hollywood fantasy. It can happen.

The United Nations is destined to be at the center of these efforts. Just recently, the UN. General Assembly held a special debate on nuclear disarmament and security. This in itself grew out of a five-point nuclear action plan that I had proposed, in late 2008, as well as an historic summit meeting of the Security Council last September.

On Monday, leaders come together at the United Nations for the periodic NPT review conference. Their last gathering, five years ago, was an acknowledged failure. This year, by contrast, we can look for advances on a range of issues.

We should not be unrealistic in our expectations. But neither can we afford to lose this opportunity for progress: on disarmament; on compliance with non-proliferation commitments, including the pursuit of a nuclear weapons free-zone in the Middle East; on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Looking ahead, I have proposed a U.N. conference later this year to review the implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. We will host a ministerial-level meeting to push the pace on bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty into force, and I have urged leaders to begin negotiations for a binding treaty on fissile materials. In October, the General Assembly will consider more than 50 resolutions on various nuclear issues. Our aim: to take the many small steps, today, that will set the stage for a larger breakthrough tomorrow.

All this work reflects the priorities of our member states, shaped in turn by public opinion. Everyone recognizes the catastrophic danger of nuclear weapons. Just as clearly, we know the threat will last as long as these weapons exist. The Earth’s very future leaves us no alternative but to pursue disarmament. And there is little prospect of that without global cooperation.

Where, if not at the United Nations, could we look for such cooperation? Bilateral and regional negotiation can accomplish much, but long-lasting and effective cooperation on a global scale requires more. The United Nations is that forum, along with the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

The U.N. is the world’s sole universally accepted arena for debate and concord, among nations as well as broader society. It serves not only as a repository of treaties but also of information documenting their implementation. It is a source of independent expertise, coordinating closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The United Nations stands today at a new Ground Zero — a “ground zero” for global disarmament, no longer a place of dread but of hope. Those who stand with us share the vision of a nuclear-free world. If ever there were a time for the world’s people to demand change, to demand action beyond the cautious half measures of the past, it is now.

April 29, 2010
White House Fact Sheet on UN Security Council Resolution 1887
“We harbor no illusions about the difficulty of bringing about a world without nuclear weapons. We know there are plenty of cynics, and that there will be setbacks to prove their point. But there will also be days like today that push us forward – days that tell a different story. It is the story of a world that understands that no difference or division is worth destroying all that we have built and all that we love. It is a recognition that can bring people of different nationalities and ethnicities and ideologies together. In my own country, it has brought Democrats and Republican leaders together.”
President Barack Obama

In an historic meeting, the United Nations Security Council today convened at the head of state/government level and unanimously cosponsored and adopted a resolution committing to work toward a world without nuclear weapons and endorsing a broad framework of actions to reduce global nuclear dangers.

The meeting, which was called for and chaired by President Obama during the United States’ Presidency of the Security Council, shows concrete progress and growing international political will behind the nuclear agenda that President Obama announced in his speech in Prague in April 2009.

The session was the fifth Summit-level meeting of the Council in its 63 years of existence and the first time that a Security Council Summit has been chaired by a U.S. President.

The new measure, UNSC Resolution 1887, expresses the Council’s grave concern about the threat of nuclear proliferation and the need for international action to prevent it. It reaffirms that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery are threats to international peace and security and shows agreement on a broad range of actions to address nuclear proliferation and disarmament and the threat of nuclear terrorism. Broadly, the resolution supports:
- A revitalized commitment to work toward a world without nuclear weapons, and calls for further progress on nuclear arms reductions, urging all states to work towards the establishment of effective measures of nuclear arms reduction and disarmament.
- A strengthened Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a Review Conference in 2010 that achieves realistic and achievable goals in all three pillars: nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The resolution supports universality of the NPT, calls on all states to adhere to its terms and makes clear the Council’s intent to immediately address any notice of intent to withdraw from the Treaty. The resolution also notes the ongoing efforts in the NPT review to identify mechanisms for responding collectively to any notification of withdrawal.
- Better security for nuclear weapons materials to prevent terrorists from acquiring materials essential to make a bomb, including through the convening of a Nuclear Security Summit in 2010, locking down vulnerable nuclear weapons materials in four years, a goal originally proposed by President Obama, minimizing the civil use of highly enriched uranium to the extent feasible, and encouraging the sharing of best practices as a practical way to strengthen nuclear security and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the G-8 Global Partnership.
- The Security Council’s authority and vital role in addressing the threat to international peace and security posed by the spread of nuclear weapons and underscoring the Council’s intent to take action if nuclear weapons or related material are provided to terrorists.
- Addressing the current major challenges to the nonproliferation regime, demanding full compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea and calling on the parties to find an early negotiated solution.
- The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) essential role in preventing nuclear proliferation and ensuring access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy under effective safeguards. This is particularly important to ensure that the growing interest in nuclear energy does not result in additional countries with nuclear weapons capabilities.
- Encouraging efforts to ensure development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy in a framework that reduces proliferation risk and adheres to the highest standards for safeguards, security and safety and recognizing the inalienable right of parties to the NPT to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
- National efforts to make it more difficult for proliferating states and non-state actors to access the international financial system as well as efforts to strengthen export controls on proliferation-related materials and stronger detection, deterrence and disruption of illicit trafficking in such materials.
- Key nuclear agreements, including START follow-on agreement, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and its 2005 Amendment.
UNSC Resolution 1887 includes new provisions to deter withdrawal from the NPT and to ensure that nuclear energy is used in a framework that reduces proliferation dangers and adheres to high standards for security. The Council committed to address without delay any state’s notification of withdrawal from the NPT and affirmed that states will be held responsible for any violations of the NPT committed prior to their withdrawal from the Treaty.

The Council also endorsed important norms to reduce the likelihood that a peaceful nuclear program can be diverted to a weapons program, including support for stricter national export controls on sensitive nuclear technologies and having nuclear supplier states consider compliance with safeguards agreements when making decisions about nuclear exports and reserve the right to require that material and equipment provided prior to termination be returned if safeguards agreements are abrogated .

The Council also expressed strong support for ensuring the IAEA has the authority and resources necessary to carry out its mission to verify both the declared use of nuclear materials and facilities and the absence of undeclared activities and affirmed the Council’s resolve to support the IAEA’s efforts to verify whether states are in compliance with their safeguards obligations.

The resolution calls upon states to conclude safeguards agreements and an Additional Protocol with the IAEA, so that the IAEA will be in a position to carry out all of the inspections necessary to ensure that materials and technology from peaceful nuclear uses are not used to support a weapons program. The Council also endorsed IAEA work on multilateral approaches to the fuel cycle, including assurances of fuel supply to make it easier for countries to choose not to develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.

These steps are important in helping address situations where a country uses access to the civilian nuclear benefits of the NPT to cloak a nascent nuclear weapons program and then withdraws from the NPT once it has acquired sufficient technical expertise for its weapons program.

The resolution strengthens implementation for resolution 1540 which requires governments to establish domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and their means of delivery. Full implementation of resolution 1540 by all UN member states will require additional financial and political support. The Council reaffirmed the need to give added impetus to the implementation of resolution 1540 by highlighting the options for improving the funding of the 1540 Committee’s activities, including through a voluntary trust fund, and reinforcing the Council’s commitment to ensure effective and sustainable support for the 1540 Committee’s activities.

The Security Council meeting was attended by:

President Barack Obama, United States of America
President Óscar Arias Sánchez, Republic of Costa Rica
President Stjepan Mesic, Republic of Croatia
President Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, Russian Federation
President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, United Mexican States
President Heinz Fischer, Republic of Austria
President Nguyen Minh Triet, Socialist Republic of Viet Nam
President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, Republic of Uganda
President Hu Jintao, People’s Republic of China
President Nicolas Sarkozy, France
President Blaise Compaoré, Burkina Faso
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Japan
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Republic of Turkey
Ban Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary General
Director General Mohamed Elbaradei, International Atomic Energy Agency Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgham, Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
September 24, 2009
New Year Message from Nobel Peace Laureate, Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat

In November 2004 the world’s NOBEL PEACE LAUREATES came together to issue a Statement. It began:

“Two decades ago, the world was swept with a wave of hope. Inspired by the popular movements for peace, freedom, democracy and solidarity, the nations of the world worked together to end the Cold War. Yet the opportunities opened up by that historic change are slipping away. We are gravely concerned with the resurgent nuclear and conventional arms race, disrespect for international law and the failure of the world’s governments to address adequately the challenges of poverty and environmental degradation.”

Today in the aftermath of the terrible devastation following the Indian Ocean tsunami we see that yet again, in times of desperate need, the world’s nations can act together.

I believe that the challenges that face the world today, of security, poverty and environmental crisis, as well as the new threat of terrorism, can only be met successfully through a united world working through the United Nations.

One of the greatest challenges that will face the world in the next decade is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. At the United Nations in New York next May we can act together again to work towards the systematic elimination of these terrible weapons of mass destruction by undertaking to implement fully the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and create a nuclear-weapon-free world for future generations.

In recognition of the importance of this event the Nobel Peace Laureates gave an undertaking:

“As an immediate specific task, we commit to work for preserving and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We reject double standards and emphasize the legal responsibility of nuclear weapons states to work to eliminate nuclear weapons. We are gravely alarmed by the creation of new, usable nuclear weapons and call for rejection of doctrines that view nuclear weapons as legitimate means of war-fighting and threat pre-emption.”

It is my belief, and that of the Nobel Peace Laureates, that the nations of the world must work together again and with a strong civil society. This is the way toward a globalization with a human face and a new international order that rejects brute force, respects ethnic, cultural and political diversity and affirms justice, compassion and human solidarity.

December 30, 2004
Nuclear Weapons, Non-Proliferation and the Quest for Security
A Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Panel Discussion
During the 2004 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee at the United Nations, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation convened a panel discussion entitled “Nuclear Weapons, Non-Proliferation and the Quest for Security,” enabling the opportunity to discuss current proliferation trends and recommendations to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

The panel was moderated by David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and speakers at the event included Canadian Senator and Chair of the Middle Powers Initiative, Douglas Roche OC, Kate Hudson, Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation, and Justine Wang, Research and Advocacy Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The resulting discussions were constructive as panelists debated the challenges posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as the responsibility to offer alternative visions of security for a more peaceful world.

Senator Roche set the tone by addressing the current state of the world today. Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, nuclear weapons states have shown scant inclination to abide by their promise of good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Without a serious effort by nuclear weapons states to achieve nuclear disarmament, the NPT will continue to promote double standards that allow some states to continue to expand and improve their nuclear arsenal while denying others of the same rights. In order to meet the challenges of today, the NPT and the non-proliferation regime is in urgent need of reconstruction. In reflecting on the role he played both as a parliamentarian and as a representative of civil society, Senator Roche underlined the importance of the role of civilian grassroots and non-governmental organizations in educating the public and influencing top level policy decisions among different countries.

Kate Hudson spoke on the subject of the “Special Relationship between the US and UK .” Having summarized the background to the relationship based on the UK ‘s historical economic dependence, Hudson spoke of the problems arising from the 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement (MDA) between the two countries. This provides the basis for extensive nuclear collaboration, without which it is unlikely that the UK would be able to sustain its possession of nuclear weapons on Trident submarines. According to Hudson , “It is unlikely that the UK could remain a nuclear weapon states without the support of the US .” The MDA is in line for renewal during 2004, which has a strong bearing on the issue of a possible Trident replacement and the potential development of new nuclear weapons.

Hudson also discussed the UK ‘s strong support for the new framework of the 2001 US Nuclear Posture Review. It was noted that many observers feel that political support for US initiatives is part of the “Special Relationship.” The problem in the UK is that the current British government strongly supports the relationship and backs the full range of US policies, including pre-emptive war and nuclear first strike. CND is currently campaigning against the development of new nuclear weapons; for an immediate parliamentary discussion on MDA; for a rejection of pre-emptive war and nuclear first use policies; in opposition to a Trident replacement; for withdrawal of permission for US use of British bases for Missile Defense; and for withdrawal of US weapons from Lakenheath.

Jacqueline Cabasso focused on US nuclear weapons policy and underlined the importance of nuclear disarmament as a core issue on the global peace movement’s agenda. According to Cabasso, while the Bush administration is demanding nuclear disarmament from other nations, it continues to upgrade and expand its nuclear arsenal. Cabasso supports this by referring to several US documents, including:
- The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, which calls for:
- The 2002 US National Security Strategy which highlights the administration’s willingness to engage in pre-emptive war, including the possibility of nuclear first strike by “acting against emerging threats before they are fully formed.”
- The US Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction which reserves to the US the right to respond with overwhelming force – including using nuclear weapons – to the use of weapons of nuclear, chemical or biological against the US or its allies.
According to Cabasso, the legitimization of nuclear weapons by the world’s first nuclear weapons state and super power, the US , poses the gravest threat to international security. The US policy of preventive war and its push to modernize its nuclear arsenal provide arguments for other countries to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

Cabasso challenged that while the security policy of the Bush administration are more extreme than other administrations, they are really a continuation of them. Cabasso continued by pointing out that even if Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry (D-MA) succeeds in winning the election in November 2004, the global community must not assume that current US nuclear weapons policy will take a dramatic turn for the better. Reading excerpts from An American Security Strategy, released in July 2003 by the National Security Advisory Group to the Democratic Party, Cabasso revealed that Democratic national security policies are not necessarily opposed to current US nuclear weapons policy. The policy paper only demonstrates a marginal change from the current US stance and endorses the current level of spending on US nuclear weapons and other military programs.

Current US nuclear policies have made visible the present and very real dangers of nuclear weapon use. Nuclear weapons threaten everyone’s security and Cabasso concluded for the need to redefine security, “throwing out the outdated model completely to replace it with a human security model” based on food, shelter, clean air and water, jobs, healthcare and education for everyone everywhere, without regard to national borders.

Justine Wang ended the panel discussion by addressing recent calls for countering proliferation and suggesting recommendations for improving the NPT and non-proliferation regime. Wang addressed the recent initiatives proposed by US President George Bush on February 11 2004, IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei and the recently passed US-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While these proposals are constructive and necessary to the extent that they don’t enshrine double standards, they fall seriously short of being able to meet the current global proliferation challenge.

Wang called for the stemming of nuclear proliferation under a more strict, equitable and effective multilateral framework and shared recommendations of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to improve the NPT and non-proliferation regime. Recommendations include commencing negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, universal application of the NPT to all states under a strict timetable, entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty , universal and equal application of the Additional Protocol , and the phased elimination of nuclear power.

Wang reiterated that the continuation of the current NPT regime that ignores existing double standards is destined to result in both further nuclear proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons. Only by embracing significant changes that end existing double standards and elevate nuclear disarmament obligations can the non-proliferation regime succeed.

Krieger concluded the panel discussion and mentioned that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is launching an online campaign entitled “Turn the Tide: Charting a New Course for US Nuclear Policy” as an example of a grassroots initiative needed to mobilize the public to alert policy makers on the threat of nuclear weapons on the world’s security.

Discussions ended with a question and answer session, where many participants engaged in constructive dialogue on facing the challenge of the increasing threat of nuclear weapons and the future of the NPT and the non-proliferation regime.
April 28, 2004
Saving Ourselves From Self-Destruction

Nuclear proliferation is on the rise. Equipment, material and training were oncelargely inaccessible. Today, however, there is a sophisticated worldwide network that can deliver systems for producing material usable in weapons. The demand clearly exists: countries remain interested in the illicit acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

If we sit idly by, this trend will continue. Countries that perceive themselves to be vulnerable can be expected to try to redress that vulnerability — and in some cases they will pursue clandestine weapons programs. The supply network will grow, making it easier to acquire nuclear weapon expertise and materials. Eventually, inevitably, terrorists will gain access to such materials and technology, if not actual weapons.

If the world does not change course, we risk self-destruction.

Common sense and recent experience make clear that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which has served us well since 1970, must be tailored to fit 21st-century realities. Without threatening national sovereignty, we can toughen the nonproliferation regime.

The first step is to tighten controls over the export of nuclear material, a priority President Bush identified yesterday in his speech on nuclear nonproliferation. The current system relies on a gentlemen’s agreement that is not only nonbinding, but also limited in its membership: it does not include many countries with growing industrial capacity. And even some members fail to control the exports of companies unaffiliated with government enterprise.

We must universalize the export control system, remove these loopholes, and enact binding, treaty-based controls — while preserving the rights of all states to peaceful nuclear technology. We should also criminalize the acts of people who seek to assist others in proliferation.

In parallel, inspectors must be empowered. Much effort was recently expended — and rightly so — in persuading Iran and Libya to give the International Atomic Energy Agency much broader rights of inspection. But the agency should have the right to conduct such inspections in all countries. Verification of nonproliferation treaty obligations requires more stringent measures, but to date, fewer than 20 percent of the 191 United Nations members have approved a protocol allowing broader inspection rights. Again, as President Bush suggested yesterday, it should be in force for all countries.

In addition, no country should be allowed to withdraw from the treaty. The treaty now allows any member to do so with three months’ notice. Any nation invoking this escape clause is almost certainly a threat to international peace and security.

This provision of the treaty should be curtailed. At a minimum, withdrawal should prompt an automatic review by the United Nations Security Council.

The international community must do a better job of controlling the risks of nuclear proliferation. Sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle — the production of new fuel, the processing of weapon-usable material, the disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste — would be less vulnerable to proliferation if brought under multinational control. Appropriate checks and balances could be used to preserve commercial competitiveness and assure a supply of nuclear material to legitimate would-be users.

Toward this end, negotiations on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty must be revived. The treaty, which would put an end to the production of fissionable material for weapons, has been stalled in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva for nearly eight years. For the material that already exists, including in some countries of the former Soviet Union, security measures must be strengthened.

Of course, a fundamental part of the nonproliferation bargain is the commitment of the five nuclear states recognized under the nonproliferation treaty — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — to move toward disarmament. Recent agreements between Russia and the United States are commendable, but they should be verifiable and irreversible. A clear road map for nuclear disarmament should be established — starting with a major reduction in the 30,000 nuclear warheads still in existence, and bringing into force the long-awaited Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

If the global community is serious about bringing nuclear proliferation to a halt, these measures and others should be considered at the nonproliferation treaty review conference next year.

We must also begin to address the root causes of insecurity. In areas of longstanding conflict like the Middle East, South Asia and the Korean Peninsula, the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction — while never justified — can be expected as long as we fail to introduce alternatives that redress the security deficit. We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security — and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.

Similarly, we must abandon the traditional approach of defining security in terms of boundaries — city walls, border patrols, racial and religious groupings. The global community has become irreversibly interdependent, with the constant movement of people, ideas, goods and resources. In such a world, we must combat terrorism with an infectious security culture that crosses borders — an inclusive approach to security based on solidarity and the value of human life. In such a world, weapons of mass destruction have no place.

*Mohamed ElBaradei is director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This article was originally published in the New York Times on February 12, 2004.

February 12, 2004
Results of the UN First Committee Votes on the New Agenda Coalition Resolutions

In an attempt to address the increasing threat of nuclear proliferation, existing nuclear weapons and emerging nuclear doctrines, the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) sponsored two resolutions at the First Committee on Disarmament and International Security at the United Nations on 15 October 2003. The New Agenda Coalition member countries are Brazil, Sweden, Mexico, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand and Egypt.

The first resolution, A/C.1/58/L.40/Rev.1, “Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: a New Agenda” is based on the Final Document of the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, where all parties to the NPT unanimously agreed to advance the nuclear disarmament agenda by means of 13 practical steps. The resolution expresses “deep concern at the limited progress to date” on implementing the 13 steps and calls for all nations to abstain from actions that could initiate a global arms race.

The resolution raises concerns about the possible effects of development of missile defenses in sparking an arms race around the world and in outer space. It is deeply apprehensive “about emerging approaches to the broader role of nuclear weapons as part of security strategies, including rationalizations for the use of, and the possible development of new types of, nuclear weapons.” These comments were made primarily in reference to the US.

Voting took place on 4 November 2003. The resolution received 121 votes in favor, 6 in opposition and 38 abstentions. US, UK and France voted against the resolution. Whilst maintaining their commitment to the NPT, the three Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Permanent Security Council members claimed that the NAC resolution went beyond the agreements of 1995 and 2000 and did not take into account progress made since 2000, including the Moscow Treaty. In the text, the NAC resolution urged the US and Russia to make the Moscow Treaty “a disarmament measure” by making it verifiable and irreversible, and by addressing non-operational warheads.

Pakistan and India also voted against the resolution. They opposed the resolution’s language expressing the “regional tensions and deteriorating security situation” in South Asia and its further calls on India and Pakistan to join the NPT. Pakistan claimed that the resolution did not take into account Pakistan’s “reasons for acquiring nuclear weapons,” which were “for self defense and strategic balance,” whilst India said the resolution was “very prescriptive” and failed to reflect “ground realities.”

Israel was the sixth country to vote against the resolution, Iran voted in favor of it.Germany, Japan and Australia all abstained on the resolution. North Koreaalso abstained from the resolution, stating that it “did not fairly reflect the nuclear issues between DPRK and the US.” The North Korean representative added, “The draft resolution also does not speak a single word about US nuclear threats against DPRK. And instead highlights unilateral and one-sided demand calling for the DPRK to give up its own self-defensive rights, which is subjected to constant nuclear threats from the US.”

China and most members of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) voted in favor of the resolution. China, however, expressed that they “are of the view that all Nuclear Weapon States should undertake not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, which is essential to the realization of total nuclear disarmament.” Canada was the only NATO member to vote in favor of the resolution.

Canada requested a vote on preambular paragraph 20 (PP20), which expressed concern that missile defenses “could impact negatively on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and lead to a new arms race on earth and in outer space….” The PP20 received 117 votes in favor, 6 in opposition and 39 abstentions. Canadaabstained from the vote, saying that if carried out cooperatively, missile defense “could complement non-proliferation efforts.” The US, UK, Israel and Micronesia voted against the PP20. Japan also voted against the PP20’s statement on missile defense, arguing that the steps needed to be “realistic and practical and take into account different circumstances”. Australia shared the same views.

The full text of the first resolution, “Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: a New Agenda” can be found at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/res/L40rev1.htm

The second resolution, A/C.1/58/L.39/Rev.1, “Reductions of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons,” specifically addresses the issue of tactical (sub-strategic or short range) nuclear weapons. It raises concerns about the threats posed by Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons (NSNW) “due to their portability, proximity to areas of conflict and probability of pre-delegation in case of military conflict.” It also addresses “the risk of proliferation and of early, preemptive, unauthorized or accidental use,” as well as shifting security doctrines and the “possible development of new types of low yield” NSNW. The resolution highlights the need for transparent and verifiable measures to ensure the elimination of NSNW in the context of commitments made in the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

In addition, the resolution warns against Nuclear Weapon States in expanding or developing their NSNW arsenal as well as rationalizing their use. It also calls for the need to further reduce the status of NSNW in order to enhance global security, reducing the risk of the use of nuclear weapons. The resolution also called on the US and Russia to formalize their 1991-92 Presidential Initiatives on eliminating tactical nuclear weapons.

Voting took place on 4 November 2003 and the resolution received 118 votes in favor, 4 in opposition and 41 abstentions.

The US, UK, France and Russia voted against the resolution, while China did not vote at all, claiming that “both the concept and definition of ‘non-strategic nuclear weapons’ as mentioned in the resolution are unclear.” Speaking on behalf of the UK and France, the US said the “three countries could not support the resolution because it fails to take into account efforts already under-way to address the concerns underlying the resolution.” The US said it completed its pledges under the 1991-2 Presidential Initiatives without a formal treaty and that a multilateral approach to the issue would only complicate matters.

Russia said it was compliant with commitments it made in reducing NSNW. It claimed the resolution was insufficiently precise and proposed “new and specific” commitments that went beyond agreements taken in 1991-2 and 2000.

The full text of the second resolution, “Reductions of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons” can be found athttp://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/res/L39Rev1.htm

*Justine Wang is the Research and Advocacy Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

November 7, 2003
Declaration of the Ministers of the New Agenda Coalition

1. The Foreign Ministers of Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and Brazil met at the 58th session of the United Nations General Assembly to review developments on nuclear disarmament and to renew their commitment to achieve a world free from nuclear weapons.

2. The Ministers paid tribute to the memory of Anna Lindh, Foreign Minister of Sweden, on the occasion of her sad passing away, and deplored the loss of a devoted colleague who had been a driving force in the common cause.

3. The Ministers expressed their deep concern at the lack of progress to date in the implementation of the thirteen steps on nuclear disarmament to which all States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

4. The Ministers stressed that each article of the NPT is binding on the respective States parties, at all times and in all circumstances, and that all States parties must be held fully accountable with respect to the strict compliance of their obligations under the Treaty, and reiterated that the implementation of undertakings therein on nuclear disarmament remains the imperative.

5. The Ministers recalled that a fundamental pre-requisite for promoting nuclear non-proliferation is the continuous irreversible progress in nuclear arms reduction. In this context, they called upon the Russian Federation and the United States of America to make the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (“the Moscow Treaty”) irreversible and verifiable and to address non-operational warheads, thus making it a nuclear disarmament measure.

6. The Ministers stressed that the recent international debate on weapons of mass destruction has only highlighted that the sole guarantee against the use of any weapon of mass destruction anywhere, including nuclear weapons, is their total elimination and the assurance that they will never be used or produced again.

7. The Ministers reiterated their deep concern at emerging approaches to the broader role of nuclear weapons as part of security strategies, including rationalizations for the use of, and the development of new types of nuclear weapons.

8. The Ministers urged the international community to intensify its efforts to achieve universal adherence to the NPT. They called on India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States and to place their facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. They recalled the commitment of all NPT States parties to promote the universality of the NPT.

9. The Ministers expressed their deep concern with the announcement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of its intention to withdraw from the NPT and related developments. In this connection they called upon the DPRK to reconsider and supported all efforts for an early, peaceful resolution of the situation, leading to the DPRK’s return to full compliance with the provisions of the NPT.

10. The Ministers stressed that the International Atomic Energy Agency must be able to verify and ensure that nuclear facilities of the States Parties of the NPT are being used for peaceful purposes only, and called upon States to cooperate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency in resolving issues arising from the implementation of their respective obligations towards the Agency.

11. The Ministers reaffirmed their conviction that the establishment of internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the regions concerned enhances global and regional peace and security, strengthens the nuclear non-proliferation regime and contributes towards realizing the objective of nuclear disarmament, and in this regard they expressed their hope that more regions would follow this path.

12. The Ministers underlined the significance of the current NPT review process to assess progress in implementation and to consider actions needed on nuclear disarmament. They stressed the importance that the Third Preparatory Committee of the 2005 NPT Review Conference submits substantive recommendations regarding nuclear disarmament, as well as on the matter of security assurances to the Review Conference.

13. The Ministers highlighted that multilateralism must remain at the forefront of all international security efforts and, with the purpose of contributing further to the objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world, stressed that their initiative will continue to be pursued with determination and announced their intention to submit two draft resolutions – entitled “Towards a nuclear weapon free world: a new agenda” and “Reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons”- to the 58th session of the General Assembly.

— Declaration issued by the Foreign Ministers of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), United Nations Headquarters, New York, 23 September 2003

September 23, 2003
Letter From Iraqi Foreign Minister to the U.N.

The following letter was delivered to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan from the Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Saberi Ahmed.

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful Go thou to Pharaoh, for he has indeed transgressed all bounds. But speak to him mildly; perchance he may take warning or fear (Alla).”

(Allah’s is the Word of Truth)

His excellency
Mr. Kofi Annan,
The Secretary-General of the United Nations,
New York, N.Y.

Your Excellency
Assalamu Alaykum,

You may recall the huge clamour fabricated by the President of the United States administration, in the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq, supported in malicious intent, and spearheaded in word and malevolence, by his lackey Tony Blair, when they disseminated the claim that Iraq had perhaps produced, or was on its way to produce, nuclear weapons, during the time when the United Nations inspectors had been absent from Iraq since 1998. Then they returned to stress that Iraq had in fact produced chemical and biological weapons. They both know, as well as we do, and so can other countries, that such fabrications are baseless. But, does the knowledge of the truth constitute elements for interaction in the politics of our day, which has witnessed the unleashing of the American administration’s evil to its fullest extent, dashing away all hope in any good? Indeed, is there any good to be hoped for, or expected, from the American administrations, now that they have been transformed by their own greed, by Zionism as well as by other known factors, into the tyrant of the age.

Let’s go back to say that Iraq, having seen this fabrication work perhaps with some countries and amongst public opinion, while others maintained silence, confronted them with its agreement to the return of the UN inspectors, having agreed on this first with you, as UN chief, in New York on 16 September, 2002, and later in a press statement issued jointly in Vienna following a meeting on 30th September-1st October between an Iraqi technical delegation headed by Dr. Amer Al-Sa’di, Chief Inspector Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But after Iraq’s acceptance of the return of the UN inspectors had become an established fact including the agreement of 19 October, 2002, on the date of their return, and only a few hours this agreement was reached, Collin Powell, the US Secretary of Sate, declared that he would refuse to accept the inspectors’ return to Iraq. In the meantime, the gang of evil returned to talking about adopting a new resolution, or new resolutions, in order to create something for the world to talk about, other than following the work of the inspectors and then seeing the fact already stated by Iraq, which was that Iraq neither had produced or was in possession of any weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical or biological, throughout the time of the inspectors’ absence from Iraq. However, representatives at the United Nations and its agencies, especially those from permanent member-states, instead of fellowship up on this and, hence, expose those responsible for the dissemination of lies and fabrications, were busy discussing the type and wording of the new resolution. They were indulged in what word or letter to add here or omit there, until they adopted a text under the pretext that is would be better to take the kicks of a raging bull in a small circle than to face its horns in an open space. The text was adopted under the American Administration’s pressure and threat that is would leave UN, if it did not agree to what America wanted, which is, to say the least, extremely evil and shameful to every honest member of the United Nations who recalls the provisions of its Charter, and sees that some people feel ashamed on behalf of those who are shameless.

Mr. Secretary-General,

We have said to the member of the Security Council whom we have contacted, or who have contacted us, when they told us about the pretexts of the Americans and their threat to perpetrate aggression against our country, whether unilaterally or with participated from others, if the Council were not to allow them to have their way, that we preferred, if it ever became necessary to see America carry out its aggressions against us unilaterally, when we would have to confront it relying on Allah, instead of seeing the American government obtaining an international cover with which to camouflage its falsehood, partially or completely, bringing it closer to the truth, so that it may stab the truth with the dagger of evil and confronted the United States before when it looked as it does now, and this was one of the factors of its isolation in the human environment on the globe at large.

The aggressionism of the United States of America and its single-handed infliction of injustice and destruction on those subjected to its inequity, in the forefront of whom are the Muslims and Arab believers, is the basic reason why America has withdrawn its ambassadors and other staff, close its embassies, and restrict its interests in many parts of the world, while reaping the hatred of the peoples of the world due to its policies and aggressive objectives. This is a situation which no other country in the world has experienced before, including the fathers of old colonialism. The Security Council, however, or indeed those who can basically play an influential role in it, have, instead of leaving the American administration and its lackey reap the result of their evil, saved wrong-doing rather than halted it. We shall see when remorse will not do any good for those who bite on their fingers.

Mr. Secretary-General,

The strength of influence of any internation organization rests on the belief of the human environment in which the organization exists and which places its trust in it, once the organization declares that is has been founded to achieve goals important to mankind. We fear the United Nations Organization may lose the trust and attachment of peoples, that is if it has not fallen to that place already. This is due to the exploitation of the organization be powerful interests, whenever their greedy ambitions converge at the expense of the interests of other peoples. It may also be due to the expediency and compromise amongst those interests in falsehood at the expense of truth. So the United Nations Organization and its agencies will collapse in the same way as did its predecessor, the league of Nations. Then the responsibility for this will not rest with the American administrations alone, but will also be due to the weakness of the timid who allow themselves to work for American interests, under the threat, lure or promises of the American administration.

He who remains silent in the defence of truth is a dumb devil. Nothing seems more reprehensible than the silence maintained by those who represented their nations in the security Council, as they discussed the American draft resolution, in the face of a question raised by the representative of Mexico regarding the possibility of lifting the blockade imposed on Iraq. The Mexican representative said, during consultations at the Security Council over SCR 1441 on 8 November 2002, that he did not find convincing the explanations presented by the American Permanent Representative, regarding the absence of any reference to the lifting of sanctions and the establishment in the Middle East region of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, and that he would convey this to his government in order to receive instructions. The British Representative responded by saying that he has listened to the statements made by the delegations of Syria and Mexico regarding the inclusion in the draft text of a paragraph on the lifting of sanctions. He went on to say that Iraq had been provided with the opportunity to dispose of its weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq had ignored that opportunity and decided to keep possession of those WMDs. Hence, he added, it would be inappropriate to include a reference to the lifting of sanctions as long as Iraq remained in possession of those weapons, even though an indirect reference to that effect was being accommodated.

We ask here, why is it that none of the representatives of SC member-states asked their British counterpart when, where and how such an alleged decision was taken by Iraq to keep possession of the weapons of mass destruction. They treated the claim made by the British representative as if it were of no significance to them: Or, rather, as it were of no concern to them to say the truth. Does not this instance, along with other things and the decline of this type of international organizations point to the possibility of the collapse of this international organization which was founded in order to preserve world peace and security, but has now been transformed into a kitchen-house for big-power bargaining, providing cover for war, destruction, blockades and starvation to be inflicted upon peoples.

The future will be determined in the light of the possibility for reform, or the inability to achieve reform. The future of the United Nations is no exception to this. Hence, all those who are truly concerned about the well-being of this organization, in deeds not only in words, and about its work on the basis of the UN Charter, so that stability, justice and fairness will prevail in the world, providing a road-map for peace, freedom and cooperation to flourish amongst peoples, are called upon to be careful and to adhere to the UN Charter and international law, and not to the whims and incontrolable instincts of those who threaten the world with their evil schemes weaponry and those who seek to achieve their interests narrow-mindedly by resorting to the bargaining at the expense of truth, justice and fairness.

Mr. Secretary-General,

We know that those who pressed the Security Council to adopt resolution No. 1441 have other objectives than making sure that Iraq had not developed mass destruction weapons in the absence of the inspectors since 1998. You are aware of how and who stood behind their absence. We also know that there are no true, just, or fair reasons behind the adoption of this resolution in the name of the security council, after the well-known understanding agreement between the representatives of Iraq and the UN Secretary-General and the press statement issued jointly by Blix, ElBaradei, and the Iraqi representatives. We hereby inform you that we will deal with resolution 1441, despite its bad contents, if it is to be implemented according to the premeditated evil of the parties of ill- intent, the important thing in this is trying to spare our people from any harm. But we will not forget, nor should others do, that safeguarding our people’s dignity, security, independence, and protecting our country, its sovereignty and sublime values, is as a sacred duty in our leadership’s and government’s agenda. Therefore, and as we said in the foresaid agreement and press statement, we are prepared to receive the inspectors, so that they can carry out their duties, and make sure that Iraq had not developed weapons of mass destruction, during their absence since 1998.

We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable. The parties concerned should bear in mind that we are in our holy month of Ramadan which means that the people are fasting, and this holy month will be followed by the Muslum’s Eid. Nevertheless, we will cooperate with the concerned UN bodies and officials on the background of all this, and of the tripartite, French-Russia-China, statement. Dealing with the inspectors, the government of Iraq will, also, take into consideration, their way of conduct, the intentions of those who are ill-intentioned amongst them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people’s national dignity, their independence and security, and their country’s security, independence and sovereignty. We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with the international law as soon as possible. If they do so, professionally and lawfully, without any premeditated intentions, the lairs’ lies will be exposed to public opinion, and the declared objective of the Security Council will be achieved. It will then become the lawful duty of the Security Council to lift the blockade and all the other unjust sanctions on Iraq. If it does not, all the peoples of good will in the world, in addition to Iraq, will tell it to do so. The SC will be compelled before the public opinion and the law to activate paragraph 14 of its resolution No. 687, by applying it to the Zionist entity (Israel), and then, to all the Middle East region, to make it a region void of mass destruction weapons. The number of just people will, then, increase in the world, and Iraq’s possibility to drive away the cawing of the crows of evil that daily raid its land, and kill Iraqis and destroy their property by their bombs. This will help the stability of the region and the world, if it is accompanied by a resolution that will not be based on double standards, to put an end to the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and other occupied Arab territories, and if the warmongers stop their aggressions on the Muslums and the world.

Therefore, through you, we reiterate the same words to the Security Council: Send your inspectors to Iraq to make sure of this, and everyone will be sure, if their way of conduct is supervised so that it becomes legal and professional, that Iraq has not developed weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological, as claimed by evil people. The lies and manipulations of the American administration and British government will be exposed, while the world will see how truthful and adequate are the Iraqis in what they say and do. But if the whims of the American administration, the Zionist desires, their followers, intelligence services, threats, and foul temptation, were given the chance to play and tamper with the inspection teams or some of their members, the colors would be then confused and the resulting commotion will distort the facts and push the situation into dangerous directions which is something fair-minded people do not wish for, as well as the people who, including my government, want to bring forward the facts as they are. The fieldwork and the implementation will be the decisive factors that will reveal whether the intentions were really for the Security Council to make sure that Iraq is void of those alleged weapons, or whether the whole thing was nothing but an evil cover by those who were behind the resolution who have no scruples to utter debased slander and to tell lies to the public opinion including to their own peoples.

So, let the inspectors come to Baghdad to carry out their duties in accordance with the law, and then we will hear and see along with those who want to hear, see and move according to each one’s responsibility and rights. The final word and reference will still be resolution No.687 with its obligations on both the Secretary general and Iraq, along will the code of conduct agreed upon in the agreement signed by thee Secretary-General in New York on 16th September, 2002, and the press statement of Hans Blix and ElBaradei in Vienna in 30/9- 1/10/2002.

Mr. Secretary-General,

Please assume your responsibilities, by saying and advising the unfair people that their unfairness to Muslims, faithful Arabs, and to all, will be of dire consequences, and that God, the Almighty is capable of doing everything. Tell them that the proud Iraqi people are faithful and Mujahid and who had fought the old colonialism, imperialism and aggression, including the tyrant’s aggression, for years and years. The price this courageous people paid to safeguard their independence, dignity, sublime principles was rivers of blood, with a lot of deprivation and loss of their riches, along with their eternal achievements and record of which they are proud. Therefore, we hope, that you will, Mr. Secretary General, advise the ignorants not to push things to the precipice, in the implementation, because the people of Iraq will not choose to live at the price of their dignity, country, freedom or sanctities, and they would rather make their lives the price if that was the only way before them to safeguard what they must safeguard.

I wish to inform your Excellency before I conclude this letter, that I intend to forward another letter to you on a later date, in which I shall state our observations the measures and procedures, contained in SCR 1441 that are contrary to international law, UN Charter, the facts already established and the measures contained in previous relevant resolutions of the Security Council.

“Do ye secure He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes”

(Allah’s is the Word of Truth)

Allah is the Greatest.

Naji Saberi Ahmed
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Iraq

November 13, 2002