Support for a nuclear weapons convention (NWC) has grown over the last year, with more governments, civil society groups and prominent individuals arguing that it is feasible, necessary and urgent. Some who had previously seen an NWC as premature now assert that the time has come to begin negotiating one.
The Chairman’s factual summary of the 2007 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) preparatory meeting acknowledged that during the meeting several countries had called for the development of an NWC and the formation of a subsidiary body dealing with nuclear disarmament at the 2010 review conference.
Costa Rica submitted a revised version of the Model NWC which had originally been drafted in 1997 by a consortium of disarmament experts. The revised version took into account relevant international developments over the last decade. Costa Rica also submitted the document to the UN General Assembly during last year’s session.
Each year, the General Assembly adopts a resolution titled “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”, which calls on all states “immediately to [commence] multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention”.
Last year, 127 nations voted in favour of the resolution, compared with 125 nations in 2006. Two countries changed their vote: Bulgaria from “no” to “yes” and Georgia from “abstain” to “no”. However, the Bulgarian delegation subsequently advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote against the resolution. Therefore, the change in number is not significant.
However, it is worth noting that ten nations did not have a vote recorded. If they had participated in the vote and voted as they did in previous years, then the result would have been 134 in favour, 29 against and 28 abstentions (as opposed to 127 in favour, 27 against and 27 abstentions).
Among the countries voting in favour of the resolution were four nuclear-armed nations: China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and Israel voted against the resolution, as did all European countries which host US nuclear weapons on their soil as part of the NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement.
Australia abstained from voting, even though the new Government had made a pre-election commitment to lead the global push for an NWC. Presumably this was because the Government had not yet had sufficient time to consider the resolution (or any others) since being sworn in. It is expected that Australia will vote in favour of the NWC resolution at this year’s General Assembly session, and it might also persuade other previously sceptical nations to do the same.
Last September Australia’s shadow foreign minister, Robert McClelland, argued that “ultimately the question to be asked is not why there should be a nuclear weapons convention but why the international community has not yet agreed to start negotiating one”. He later informed the Australian Press Club that a Labor Government would be “committed to driving the international agenda for a nuclear weapons convention”.
However, neither the Australian Foreign Minister nor the Prime Minister has yet confirmed that the Government stands by its pre-election commitment. Prime Minister Rudd has merely declared an intention to engage in “activist middle power diplomacy”, including on nuclear weapons issues. As mentioned in my previous post, Australia didn't mention an NWC in its opening statement to the present NPT preparatory meeting being held in Geneva.
Representatives of the ICAN in Australia have suggested to the Government that it might consider establishing an advisory committee within the Foreign Ministry to make recommendations on the most effective way to advance an NWC. The committee would decide, for example, whether an NWC should be promoted through the Seven Nation Initiative and whether it would be feasible to convene a summit of world leaders before the 2010 NPT RevCom to discuss the possibility of negotiating such a treaty.
Australia is not the only country in which ICAN has generated enthusiasm for an NWC. Last year, the campaign was launched nationally in Canada, Denmark, France, India, Malaysia, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, and a growing number of individuals in those countries have added their voice to the call. The campaign has managed to foster close ties with parliamentarians and other key decision makers in several countries.
ICAN and an NWC were central to this year’s World Congress of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which took place in New Delhi and attracted more delegates than any previous conference, including a large contingent of medical students.
The campaign has printed and distributed hundreds of thousands of brochures, postcards and booklets aimed at gaining support for a nuclear-weapon-free world through an NWC, and in partnership with three international organizations it has circulated thousands of copies of the updated Model NWC.
ICAN has received endorsements from high-profile disarmament experts, including Dr Hans Blix and Gareth Evans, who agree that the time for an NWC is now. Professor Jody Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her involvement in the campaign to ban landmines, has also backed the campaign. At last year’s NPT PrepCom, she remarked: “We are told by some governments that a nuclear weapons convention is premature and unlikely. Don’t believe it. We were told the same thing about a mine ban treaty.”
An NWC would help to overcome the current stalemate in negotiations for disarmament. It would encourage the involvement of the four nuclear-armed nations which currently sit outside the NPT: Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. This year’s preparatory meeting should be used as a forum for generating support for an NWC and deciding how best to transform the Model NWC, or something like it, into law. Yesterday we heard China speak of the need for an NWC and today we heard Costa Rica and Malaysia do the same. We hope that over the coming two weeks many nations join them in their call.
The Chairman’s factual summary of the 2007 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) preparatory meeting acknowledged that during the meeting several countries had called for the development of an NWC and the formation of a subsidiary body dealing with nuclear disarmament at the 2010 review conference.
Costa Rica submitted a revised version of the Model NWC which had originally been drafted in 1997 by a consortium of disarmament experts. The revised version took into account relevant international developments over the last decade. Costa Rica also submitted the document to the UN General Assembly during last year’s session.
Each year, the General Assembly adopts a resolution titled “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”, which calls on all states “immediately to [commence] multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention”.
Last year, 127 nations voted in favour of the resolution, compared with 125 nations in 2006. Two countries changed their vote: Bulgaria from “no” to “yes” and Georgia from “abstain” to “no”. However, the Bulgarian delegation subsequently advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote against the resolution. Therefore, the change in number is not significant.
However, it is worth noting that ten nations did not have a vote recorded. If they had participated in the vote and voted as they did in previous years, then the result would have been 134 in favour, 29 against and 28 abstentions (as opposed to 127 in favour, 27 against and 27 abstentions).
Among the countries voting in favour of the resolution were four nuclear-armed nations: China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and Israel voted against the resolution, as did all European countries which host US nuclear weapons on their soil as part of the NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement.
Australia abstained from voting, even though the new Government had made a pre-election commitment to lead the global push for an NWC. Presumably this was because the Government had not yet had sufficient time to consider the resolution (or any others) since being sworn in. It is expected that Australia will vote in favour of the NWC resolution at this year’s General Assembly session, and it might also persuade other previously sceptical nations to do the same.
Last September Australia’s shadow foreign minister, Robert McClelland, argued that “ultimately the question to be asked is not why there should be a nuclear weapons convention but why the international community has not yet agreed to start negotiating one”. He later informed the Australian Press Club that a Labor Government would be “committed to driving the international agenda for a nuclear weapons convention”.
However, neither the Australian Foreign Minister nor the Prime Minister has yet confirmed that the Government stands by its pre-election commitment. Prime Minister Rudd has merely declared an intention to engage in “activist middle power diplomacy”, including on nuclear weapons issues. As mentioned in my previous post, Australia didn't mention an NWC in its opening statement to the present NPT preparatory meeting being held in Geneva.
Representatives of the ICAN in Australia have suggested to the Government that it might consider establishing an advisory committee within the Foreign Ministry to make recommendations on the most effective way to advance an NWC. The committee would decide, for example, whether an NWC should be promoted through the Seven Nation Initiative and whether it would be feasible to convene a summit of world leaders before the 2010 NPT RevCom to discuss the possibility of negotiating such a treaty.
Australia is not the only country in which ICAN has generated enthusiasm for an NWC. Last year, the campaign was launched nationally in Canada, Denmark, France, India, Malaysia, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, and a growing number of individuals in those countries have added their voice to the call. The campaign has managed to foster close ties with parliamentarians and other key decision makers in several countries.
ICAN and an NWC were central to this year’s World Congress of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which took place in New Delhi and attracted more delegates than any previous conference, including a large contingent of medical students.
The campaign has printed and distributed hundreds of thousands of brochures, postcards and booklets aimed at gaining support for a nuclear-weapon-free world through an NWC, and in partnership with three international organizations it has circulated thousands of copies of the updated Model NWC.
ICAN has received endorsements from high-profile disarmament experts, including Dr Hans Blix and Gareth Evans, who agree that the time for an NWC is now. Professor Jody Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her involvement in the campaign to ban landmines, has also backed the campaign. At last year’s NPT PrepCom, she remarked: “We are told by some governments that a nuclear weapons convention is premature and unlikely. Don’t believe it. We were told the same thing about a mine ban treaty.”
An NWC would help to overcome the current stalemate in negotiations for disarmament. It would encourage the involvement of the four nuclear-armed nations which currently sit outside the NPT: Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. This year’s preparatory meeting should be used as a forum for generating support for an NWC and deciding how best to transform the Model NWC, or something like it, into law. Yesterday we heard China speak of the need for an NWC and today we heard Costa Rica and Malaysia do the same. We hope that over the coming two weeks many nations join them in their call.
No comments:
Post a Comment