|
|
|
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Monitoring The UN > Peace an Security at the UN The United Nations and Nuclear Disarmament
In August 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated. These two cities could be considered as peace symbols since they mark the end of World War II. However, this is not the case. In fact, in our collective imagination, Hiroshima and Nagasaki symbolize a human catastrophe coupled with one of human nature’s diabolical facets. These two Japanese cities were the targets of the first uses of the A-bomb, better known as the atomic bomb. Since then, countless international organizations headed by the United Nations first, and the movements of both States and individuals have begun to question the use of nuclear weapons to ensure world peace and security. The first UN treaty on nuclear weapons went into effect as early as 1959. The Antarctic Treaty established the first nuclear-free zone. In 1968, the Non-proliferation Treaty was open for signatures. This treaty is the only one to stipulate that the States undertake nuclear disarmament and cease all type of arms race. The United States, Great Britain, Russia and Northern Ireland are the depositary states of this treaty. Since the end of the Cold War (1989), nuclear weapons have begun to be perceived no longer as the supreme symbol of political virility, but rather as a global security problem. Environmental damage, the risk of nuclear accidents and especially the threat of a total or partial destruction of human civilizations, are some of the reasons that justify rethinking the use and possession of nuclear weapons. The First United Nations Committee on Disarmament and International Security, the United Nations Commission on Disarmament, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Conference on Disarmament (CD), the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), and the Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA) are all UN commissions, agencies and departments exclusively devoted to disarmament and to international security. Furthermore, international movements of States and citizens’ groups are being created that question the morality and the rationale for having a nuclear bomb. Not only do these movements support and reinforce the treaties signed under the United Nations auspices, but they also propose new agreements on disarmament. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Landmines and their Production – the Ottawa Convention, is a good example of the bond of cooperation between States and non-governmental organizations. UnitedNations organisms on nuclear disarmament Ever since its establishment in 1945, the United Nations has closely examined disarmament, and more specifically nuclear disarmament. As early as January 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction and at ensuring that nuclear energy would be used solely for peaceful purposes. Not only have international treaties been concluded under United Nations’ auspices, but the UN has also established commissions, agencies and departments specializing in disarmament and security issues. Even if the General Assembly’s first priority is to examine disarmament issues, including nuclear disarmament, subsidiary bodies have been created to reduce the load for the General Assembly. One of the main UN structures on nuclear disarmament is The First United Nations Committee on Disarmament and International Security. Each of the six United Nations committees is designed to alleviate General Assembly sessions. All United Nations committees are subject to the same rules of procedure as those governing the General Assembly. This way, all United Nations member states are represented in each committee. The First Committee is therefore a subset of the General Assembly. This committee sits at the same time as the General Assembly and examines all disarmament-related items on the agenda. The First Committee recommends to the General Assembly resolutions that have already been adopted by committee members. Founded in 1952, the United Nations Commission on Disarmament is a legislative body specializing in disarmament. This Commission, like the First Committee, is subject to the same rules of procedure as the General Assembly. Therefore, all United Nations States are represented. The Commission meets in New York in May or June for four weeks and is designed to submit recommendations on various disarmament-related issues to the General Assembly. The Commission deals with specific issues, such as nuclear weapon-free zones. There is also the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), founded in 1957 thanks to a General Assembly resolution. The IAEA is an intergovernmental scientific and technical forum that focuses on cooperation between the States in the field of nuclear energy. The IAEA is not a legislative body, but rather an information agency on nuclear weapons and energy. In 1999, the IAEA consisted of 128 member states. It is also an agency that is responsible for verification and inspection missions on the enforcement of international nuclear energy standards. This way, the United Nations Special Commission (UNESCOM) in Iraq was implemented by the IAEA. On 27 September 1999, the IAEA held its 43rd conference in Vienna. The topic of the conference was the role of nuclear energy in sustainable development. Then, there is the Conference on Disarmament (CD). Founded in 1979, the CD emerged from the first extraordinary session of the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament held in 1978. Other negotiation instances on disarmament had existed beforehand, such as the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1960), the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1962-1968), and the Conference on the Disarmament Committee (1969-1978). The CD, which meets in Geneva, has a privileged relationship with the United Nations. Contrary to the First Committee and to the Commission on Disarmament, the CD has its own rules of procedure and establishes its own agenda. This way, the conference works on a consensus basis and brings together sixty-six States (as of 1999), including the seven currently known nuclear powers. However, it should be mentioned that Yugoslavia and Congo (former Zaire) no longer hold a seat. The efforts of the Conference on Disarmament focus mainly on: 1) effective international agreements to possibly ensure non-Nuclear weapon States against the use or the threat of these weapons by Nuclear weapon States; 2) preventing an arms race in space; 3) negotiations relative to a treaty banning the production of fissible material for building weapons and other nuclear devices; and 4) transparency in the field of weapons. It is actually within the context of the CD and of bodies that preceded it that the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (TNP), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban Treaty (CTBT) were signed. Since 1998, the Conference on Disarmament has been paralysed and no agreement on disarmament has been possible. In fact, some countries block as many agreements as possible. These States claim to want to maintain such a position as long as the Nuclear weapon States do not comply with Resolution VI of the Treaty of Non-proliferation. However, an agreement may be possible regarding fissible material, which leaves the door open for the hope for an opening of the conference. There is also the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). Established in 1980 following a proposal presented by France during the first special session of the United Nations General Assembly on Disarmament held in 1978, the UNIDIR is an independent research institute. The mission of this institute is to supply the international community with complete and diverse information on disarmament-related issues. Furthermore, the UNIDIR supports comprehensive and objective technical research on disarmament and publishes a quarterly review entitled Disarmament Forum. In this way, the UNIDIR helps inform the public opinion on the inherent dangers of nuclear power and on the need for an international control over these weapons. Finally, the Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA) was recently recreated. Established in 1982, the DDA was abolished in 1992. However, in January 1998, following an announcement by the United Nations Secretary General on entrusting an associate with the disarmament programme, the Department for Disarmament Affairs was restored. The DDA’s main duties include assisting the United Nations Secretary General on disarmament and security-related issues. Five different services are available within the Department: the Disarmament Conference and Conference Support Secretariat Service, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Service, the Conventional Weapons Service, the Database Management Follow-up and Information Service, and the Regional Disarmament Service. Most international treaties were created as part of these UN committees, bodies and departments: the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (TNP, 1968), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC, 1992) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban Treaty (CTBT, 1996) are the main international treaties in existence on weapons of mass destruction. Currently, the treaty on fissible weapons is being negotiated. The Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (TNP), which came into effect in 1970, the treaties on the reduction of strategic weapons (START), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban Treaty (CTBT), are different international, multi- and bilateral treaties aimed at reducing the current nuclear threat. The TNP bans nuclear proliferation, the CWC controls chemical weapons, and the CTBT aims for a total ban on nuclear weapons testing. START I and II are bilateral agreements between the United States and Russia aimed at reducing the nuclear arsenal of each superpower. These three international and two bilateral agreements seem to cover most nuclear weapon issues. Coupled with the Ottawa Convention on Antipersonnel Landmines and the future treaty on fissible matters, international legislation governing nuclear weapons proliferation seems to be thorough. However, this is not the case. All these treaties are jeopardized by the comeback of nuclear dissuasion policies and nuclear proliferation. Both signatory- and non-signatory States of each one of these treaties sometimes act without any regard for international laws. International treaties are crucial for the construction of a world where nuclear weapons can be controlled, if not eliminated. The political > importance of international treaties India and Pakistan are good examples of the importance of the existence of and respect for these international treaties. These two countries recently carried nuclear tests[1] despite the fact that they had the technology before that. The fact that they waited so long before perfecting the nuclear bomb is proof that what causes nuclear weapons is not so much the know-how and technological capabilities, but rather international policy reasons. In fact, several countries have the necessary know-how and resources to develop nuclear weapons, yet they have chosen not to. In Canada, for example, thanks to the technology used by the CANDU reactors, we could be developing nuclear weapons; but instead, we use nuclear energy for non-military purposes. Therefore, it is not for reasons of feasibility, but as a result of political decisions that some States choose not to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore it is crucial to dissuade States from having nuclear weapons. This may be possible thanks to political dissuasion, legal channels, transparency and international verification. International and national agreements on nuclear disarmament (e.g., the TNP, CWC, CTBT, START I and II) are examples of political dissuasion, the judgement of the Court of Justice in The Hague is a form of legal dissuasion on the use and possession of nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) missions, such as UNESCOM in Iraq, are examples of dissuasion through verification and transparency. So there are possible actions for nuclear disarmament. The concerted effort of international public opinion, however, remains a highly effective way to counter nuclear proliferation. Everyone can become involved in different movements against the resurgence of nuclear weapons. Therefore, ensuring the credibility and the power of UN bodies and treaties on nuclear disarmament becomes crucial, especially since other countries (Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Syria, according to a CIA report submitted to the U.S. Congress in 1998, and Israel) are suspected of being technologically capable of developing a bomb, i.e., becoming nuclear-weapon capable. However, international political agreements lose their power because of the actions of certain States. The weakness of international treaties According to the latest census carried out by the United Nations in 1998, 187 States had signed the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). In fact, only four countries did not sign the NPT: Israel, Cuba, India and Pakistan. In 1995, the parties decided to prolong it indefinitely. Furthermore, from 24 April to 24 May 2000, a get-together will be held in New York on the validity of this treaty and whether it should be extended. It is of the utmost importance that the non-Nuclear weapon States, the NGOs, and the public at large make themselves heard at this conference to reinforce and prolong this treaty. Again, in 1998, 141 States ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and 41 did the same with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban Treaty (CTBT). India and Pakistan might even consider the CTBT. However, before we start celebrating, certain details should be pointed out. First, it is important to note that the CTBT does not ban the use of nuclear weapons, but that it allows their development as long as testing is carried out in a laboratory. Furthermore, some States violate international treaties (such as the CTBT, CWC and NPT, among others) without any type of reprisal, except for the occasional disapproval from the world public opinion. For example, the United States, France, Great Britain, China and Russia violate the NPT with impunity, without necessarily being subjected to international punishment. Then, the Conference on Disarmament, which operates by consensus, is blocked and the disarmament issues are moving at a snail’s pace. Finally, the United States are now involved in the nuclear conquest of space. Between 1987 and 1995, the world went through a nuclear and conventional disarmament boom. During this period, a new notion of security emerged, namely that of human security. According to this concept, war is the enemy that must be fought since it poses a threat to international security. This way, this concept requires that the States ask themselves how they can pose less of a threat to another State. The Canadian government is working to have the Security Council function according to such a concept of security. As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, the notion of human security implies that the threat to security is no longer the other State, but the weapons themselves. The threat of nuclear danger will persist as long as nuclear weapons do, as war may erupt because of an accident, calculation error, or provocation. In this way, we are no longer thinking about nuclear dissuasion, but rather how to dissuade the possession of such weapons, in other words, put an end to the accumulation and upgrading, while eliminating nuclear weapon stocks both gradually and consistently. It is within this context that States such as Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Australia and Switzerland have destroyed their nuclear weapons programme; that Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, following the break-up of the Soviet Union, have renounced their Nuclear weapon State status. Germany and Japan, with their powerful scientific community and with underground fissible material reserves, refuse to develop nuclear programmes. In fact, more than 40 countries are nuclear weapon capable, but refuse to implement this capability. Between 1987 and 1995, new forms of dissuasion have seen the light by way of politics, legal channels, transparency and verification. It was during this period that the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was extended (1995), and that the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC, 1992) and the Comprehensive Test-ban Treaty (CTBT, 1996) were approved. Between 1987 and 1995, many international treaties on controlling and reducing weapons of mass destruction, not just nuclear ones, came into existence while other treaties, such as the NPT, were reinforced. Furthermore, in July 1991, following eight years of negotiations, U.S. President George Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). However, this treaty only came into effect in December 1994. According to this bilateral agreement, in 2001, the United States and Russia will have reduced their nuclear strategic force to 1600 delivery trucks and 6000 nuclear warheads, 4900 of which will be ballistic missiles. In 1993, Presidents Bush and Yeltsin signed START II. This treaty was supposed to reduce nuclear warhead stockpiles in both States to 3500. In January 1996, the U.S. Senate ratified START II. Unfortunately, since April 14 2000, the Duma, Russia’s parliament, refused to ratify this treaty. According to an article by former Russian Prime Minister Evgeny Primakoff in June 1999, this refusal is justified by the U.S. bombing of Iraq and Kosovo[i]. It remains that the lesson that some States have learned from Kosovo is that nuclear weapons are the only means of protection against an attack by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Indeed, in 1997, NATO, and at the top of the list, the United States, reaffirmed the need for nuclear weapons for the security of organization members. This pushed the Russians to maintain their nuclear policy, and India and Pakistan to carry out tests. Even Mexico is threatening to resort to nuclear force if the Nuclear weapon States refuse to comply with international will. Furthermore, the United States is once again flouting international treaties and currently trying to conquer space both militarily and with the help of nuclear energy. New nuclear weapons are also being created and not being regulated, such as uranium-depleted weapons. These weapons were used by the Americans during the Gulf War in 1991, and many people believe that they are responsible for what has been called the Gulf War Syndrome. These uranium-depleted weapons kill indiscriminately and cause cancer, especially in women and children. Depleted uranium is used to make so-called “intelligent” bombs. It is thought that the United States may have used these bombs in Kosovo. So, in spite of international treaties in place, nuclear proliferation is back. Nuclear proliferation Nuclear proliferation can be defined as the spread of nuclear weapons. Until now, two types of nuclear proliferation have been identified: when new powers acquire the nuclear bomb, or through the multiplication of these weapons in the hands of current powers. These two types of nuclear proliferation are threats to global security. Indeed, nuclear proliferation is responsible for the arms race, aggravates conflicts by provoking reprisals and represents a threat for the world environment, but also, and most of all, for all of humankind. The Non-proliferation Treaty is the only treaty that attempts to prevent proliferation, hence its importance. One of the consequences of nuclear proliferation is what had sadly been called the “arms race”. During the forty years of the Cold War, the United States and Russia, for so-called security reasons, launched into the arms race. The aim of this race is simple: whoever accumulates the most conventional and nuclear weapons, wins. With the arms race, the risk of nuclear accidents began to escalate. On more than one occasion, the world barely escaped accidental nuclear destruction. For example, in 1980, because of a defective chip, a U.S. computer emitted false nuclear alert signals. In 1983, in Russia, satellites mistook some cloud formations for launched U.S. missiles. A disaster almost occurred and was prevented only because the local commander could simply not believe that the signal was the real thing! The arms race climaxed in 1986, with over 69,000 nuclear weapons in the world. And yet, as early as 1985, Gorbachev’s election to power in the Soviet Union marked the beginning of a new era, known as détente. From 1985 until very recently, nuclear-weapon reserves around the world began to decline gradually to some 30 000 nuclear weapons worldwide[ii] in 1998. This represents an 80% drop in the number of nuclear weapons worldwide, which is good news. However, since the 1960s, the nuclear reserves of France, Great Britain and China have more than tripled. Furthermore, since May 1998, two new States have joined ranks with other Nuclear weapon States, namely India and Pakistan. In spite of their affirmations, the current arms race between India and Pakistan represents a real threat to world peace and security The pro-nuclear offensive In 1991, NATO and the United Stateslaunched their
pro-nuclear offensive.
In November 1991, NATO claimed that in the face of political uncertainty
in Eastern Europe and given the newcomers on the international scene
(e.g., terrorists, drug-traffickers, etc.), nuclear weapons were always
crucial for the security of its members. This represented, Such a step is a threat to disarmament-related treaties, committees, agencies and departments and causes a fear of significant nuclear proliferation. Two months later, in January 1992, a report by the U.S. Pentagon recommended an increasing role for nuclear weapons so as to discourage Third-World countries from resorting to chemical and/or biological weapons. Since 1994, this recommendation constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. nuclear policy. Furthermore, in 1999, the United States launched into the nuclear conquest of space, and in April 1999, at the Washington Summit, NATO reiterated its will to conserve and upgrade its nuclear weapons. According to NATO, nuclear weapons are always useful on a political level. Following a brief period of hope (1987-1995), it now looks as though the Nuclear weapon States are not going to comply with a disarmament policy. Thus, NATO, even if it no longer has any obvious enemies, continues to build up its nuclear capabilities and upgrade both as a military and nuclear ally. In light of NATO’s expansion and its return to a nuclear policy, Moscow preferred to highlight once again the importance of its nuclear forces and opted to slow down the arms control process. In June 1999, Russia carried out its most comprehensive nuclear exercise since 1991. India and Pakistan have also justified their new status as Nuclear weapon States by the refusal of other Nuclear weapon States, particularly the United States, France and Great Britain, to continue eliminating their nuclear weapons and to comply with Resolution VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). According to this Resolution, the Nuclear weapon States are obliged to rid themselves of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, India denounced the NS’s hypocrisy that criticized India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear tests while carrying on with their own. Like India and Pakistan, Mexico announced that if the Nuclear weapon States did not comply with the NPT’s demands, it would consider the possibility of developing its own nuclear bomb. This leads one to suppose that Mexico is not the only country with such a policy, which can only mean trouble over the coming years. Both NATO’s and the U.S. position undermine the credibility of existing international treaties and serve to justify and encourage nuclear proliferation. The current double standard is discriminatory: why is it that some States can have nuclear weapons and continue testing while others cannot? The NS are faced with a decision: either they comply with international legislation and undertake complete disarmament, or else nuclear proliferation will continue, thereby increasing threats to global security by exacerbating conflict and by representing a serious threat to the environment. In order to ensure the survival and credibility of international treaties, States’ and citizens’ groups have been formed. Movements by citizens groups and States Faced with the evidence that the Nuclear weapon States (NS) will not undertake nuclear disarmament on their own, some States and citizens’ groups have created associations. On 9 June 1998, eight middle powers courageously criticized the NS as well as India, Israel and Pakistan about their attitude toward nuclear armament. The New Agenda Coalition (NAC) consisted of South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and Switzerland. However, under pressure from NATO, Slovenia had to withdraw from the group of eight. These eight middle powers suggested a practical and realistic agenda, aimed at the total elimination of nuclear weapons. In December 1998, and in November 1999, the NAC submitted two different resolutions on the need for a new agenda on nuclear disarmament. What is interesting is not so much the resolutions per se, but that 12 of the 19 NATO member-countries, including Canada, did not follow NATO recommendations. Instead of voting against the resolution, these 12 States abstained. China is the only NS to have abstained. The resolution was adopted with 114 in favour, 18 against and 38 abstentions. The new resolution of November 1999 was adopted as well, with 90 in favour, 13 against and 37 abstentions. 13 NATO’s states still abstain and 6 were against the NAC resolution. China was still the only Nuclear weapon State to abstain, France, Pakistan, India, United Kingdom, United States were opposed. Shortly before the creation of the NAC, (i.e., in March 1998), the Middle Power Initiative(MPI) was launched. Consisting of three Nobel Peace Laureates, (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILF)), as well as several international NGOs, the MPI was created to promote the signing of an international agreement aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons. Faced with the return of the dissuasion policy, the DC’s paralysis, not to mention the negative attitude of the Nuclear weapon States, there is an urgent need to encourage disarmament. The Middle Power’s main objectives are to support and inform about the NAC, to campaign so that NATO reviews its military strategy, that the Non-proliferation Treaty be taken seriously and respected by the signatory States, to facilitate international consultations on nuclear disarmament, and finally, the MPI wants to draw up an effective communication strategy to inform the public at large of the real threat of nuclear weapons. Following the publication of Fast Track to Zero Nuclear Weapons in 1998, a new report was published in November 1999. There is also Abolition 2000, which the Middle Power Initiative (MPI) is a member. Abolition 2000 is a worldwide network for nuclear abolition. This international coalition of citizens’ groups works in favour of peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Created in The Hague in 1995, Abolition 2000 wants an agreement negotiated and concluded by the year 2000, an agreement that would establish a deadline for all States to dispose of their nuclear weapons. Abolition 2000 is an NGO whose main mission is to exert pressure on the Nuclear weapon States and non-Nuclear weapon States toward a nuclear weapon-free world. The member-groups of Abolition 2000 want to pressure the States by way of their Declaration. By signing this declaration, both individuals and citizens’ groups are expressing the world’s popular disapproval of nuclear arms. Canadais position on nuclear arms In Canada, various agencies and individuals are working on nuclearIn Canada, various agencies and individuals are working on nuclear disarmament. In April 1996, these movements decided to join forces to create the Canadian Network for
the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (CNANW) The United Nations Association of Canada (UNA-Canada), along with 92% of Canadians who would like to see Canada become a world leader on nuclear disarmament, is proud of being part of the CNANW. This adhesion to the Canadian network on nuclear disarmament is in agreement with the United Nations’ position. UNA-Canada feels that individuals and citizens’ groups have a role to play in nuclear disarmament. In addition to the aforementioned agencies, the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was implemented by the Australian Government as well as regrouping 60 retired generals and admirals who have signed a statement asking for the elimination of nuclear arms. Both of these groups have significantly contributed to the advancement of world nuclear disarmament. The actions of citizens’ groups and NGOs may influence world policies, which explains the importance of citizens’ groups. In Canada, in the wake of CNANW actions, the government asked the Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s Standing Parliamentary Committee to go over Canadian policies in terms of nuclear arms. In December 1998, the Committee submitted its report. This report clearly favours a precise nuclear disarmament policy. In April 1999, the government released its reply. In this report, Canada does not take a clear stand on nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, thanks to an international citizens’ initiative, the International Court of Justice in The Hague handed down a decision on the legality of nuclear arms. In its judgement made public on 8 July 1996, the Court confirmed that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the rules and principles of humanitarian law”. The 14 judges of the Court even added that all countries were legally obliged to strive for and attain “nuclear disarmament in all its aspects”. The concerted actions of individuals, agencies and States thereby contribute to the emergence of a nuclear-free world. Footnote: 1 On May 11 1998, India announced that it had carried out three nuclear tests. Pakistan replied with its own tests on 28 and 30 May 1998. Since then, more followed. Source: The Middle Power Initiative, Fast Track to Zero Nuclear Weapons Resources i"Kosovo May Mark New World
Order" in Algemeen Dagblad: Rotterdam, June 30:10 Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons CNANW |
