|
By Uta Zapf , MdB
Member of the Deutsche Bundestag
Co-President of PNND
Address to Atlanta Consultation III
Atlanta , January 22, 2010
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
When I met Xanthe Hall and Douglas Roche in my capacity as chairperson of the Arms Control and Disarmament Committee of the Deutsche Bundestag and they presented Abolition 2000 and the idea of a Nuclear Weapons Convention to me, I was a strong advocate of the step by step process of the NPT. Since that time I have been in contact with various groups that promote the Nuclear Weapons Convention, e. g. INESAP, IALANA, IPPNW and others. First I did not believe that a Nuclear Weapons Convention could be reached – I thought it was unrealistic and would ruin the important 13 Steps of the Review Conference of 2000.
Now I am a convert.
In 2005 we had to realize that no implementation of the 13 steps had been started, no CTBT had been ratified, that the CD in Geneva was stuck for years and the Review Conference in 2005 was a total disaster.
Nowadays the political environment has changed.
When Obama in his campaign stressed the importance of nuclear disarmament and announced the disarmament goal Zero, hope of all engaged organisations rose. (Even Republican candidate McCain took up the issue.)
In 2007 and 2008 four wise veterans of policy issued op-eds in the Wall Street Journal and the Hoover Initiative “Global Zero” was started. A whole range of elder statesman followed suit. All of them asked for new momentum in nuclear disarmament and pleaded for a perspective of a nuclear weapons free world in a process of disarmament steps.
In this context, the proposal of a Nuclear Weapons Convention got more and more attention.
Following the 1996 International Court of Justice opinion, which confirmed a universal obligation to fulfil the obligation out of Article VI NPT and bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control, Costa Rica in 1997 passed a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention as a document to the United Nations General Assembly. Malaysia regularly passes a resolution to the first Committee of the General Assembly named “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 upon all states to commence “multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention” .
While in October 2006 the UN General Assembly voted 168 to 4 to abolish nuclear weapons the proposal of a Nuclear Weapons Convention between 2007 and 2009 only gained between 127 to 124 votes (in comparison the highest vote in favour in 2004 was 132).
My country, Germany, together with the EU and NATO states voted against commencing negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The comment my government gave to me was “there is no consensus to be seen for negotiations on a Convention”.
What are the arguments for the rejection?
First: the unrealistic timeframe.
Second: the diversion from more pressing issues like the negotiations of FMCT, if you bring negotiations on a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention to the CD.
Third: Questions of the NATO Strategic Concept.
This third point is very interesting in the light of ongoing NATO considerations.
NATO is struggling with the decision what the future role of nuclear weapons in the Alliance should be.
The NATO summit in April 2009 declared:
“Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy.”
NATO announces full support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty and stresses the importance of “good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under international control.”
What else could be “a treaty on general and complete disarmament under international control” if not a convention, that in the end prohibits the development, production, storage and use of nuclear weapons?
A convention, that provides for transparency in stocks and material, and for phases of destruction of weapons and stop of production of fissile material. It also would provide a strong monitoring and verification system.
If we want to reach the goal of outlawing nuclear weapons, it is crucial to change security doctrines and to abolish nuclear deterrence.
The Strategic Concept of NATO of 1999 “Deterrence of Aggressions” maintains the option of use of nuclear weapons in a wide range of circumstances.
The US Nuclear Posture Review of 2003 contains options for preemptive nuclear strikes against WMD attacks and capabilities, against overwhelming conventional attacks or even “surprising” military developments, thus making the use of nuclear weapons “useful and legal” in a broad range of circumstances.
Both strategies – of NATO and of the United States – are under revision.
We have to mobilize the willingness of governments to change them into the right direction.
In December 2007, NATO General Secretary Jaap de Hoop Schaeffer declared: “NATO is not planning to change its nuclear strategy.”
If you look at the summit declaration of April 2009 you do not see more willingness for changes.
In March of this year we will know how the US doctrine will reflect President Obamas vision of total abolition.
In 2006 the Blix Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction wrote:
“A nuclear disarmament treaty is achievable and can be reached through careful, sensible and practical measures. Benchmarks should be set; definitions agreed, timetables drawn up and agreed upon; and transparency requirements agreed. Disarmament work should be set in motion.”
And recommendation Nr. 30 under the title “From regulating nuclear weapons to outlawing them” reads:
“All states possessing nuclear weapons should commence planning for security without nuclear weapons. They should start preparing for the outlawing of nuclear weapons through joint practical and incremental measures, benchmarks and transparency requirements for nuclear disarmament.”
Existing nuclear strategies confront us with a hidden (or rather overt?) dilemma for Global Zero.
President Obama vowed “to restore America’s leadership in reducing the role of nuclear weapons and working towards their ultimate elimination”.
At the same time he declared: “As long as nuclear weapons exist, I will retain a strong, safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent to protect us and our allies”.
David Miliband pleaded for a nuclear weapons free world and at the same time defended the modernization of the Trident System as a necessary deterrent as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world.
President Sarkozy of France wrote a letter to Ban Ki Moon on Dec 6, 2008 -one day before Global Zero was presented in Paris- and pleaded for denuclearization while clinging to the modernization of the Force de Frappe.
There could be a way out of this dilemma.
By agreeing to take up negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention as a process leading to total abolition and by describing concrete steps, we could organize an incremental and parallel process for nuclear disarmament and include those states, which possess nuclear weapons but are not state parties to the NPT.
The provision of the NPT have been perceived by some states as discriminatory. The P5 have different requirements than others. The Nuclear Weapons Convention provides a non-discriminatory approach. The general obligations apply equally to all states. This could make it easier for non NPT states to join negotiations.
The idea of a Nuclear Weapons Convention became new momentum by the five-point plan of the General Secretary of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon. Ban Ki Moon suggests, that the NPT states could pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament either by agreement of a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments or they could consider negotiating a nuclear weapons convention.
I don’t think there is an either/or. The Model Nuclear Weapons Convention includes disarmament steps agreed to in the final documents of the NPT Review Conference of 1995 (CTBT, FMCT, disarmament steps) and the 13 steps agreed to in the final document of the Review Conference 2000.
These are all necessary elements for a successful process leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
We all should work to make the Review Conference 2010 a success by working on the 13 steps and their adaption and implementation. But we could strengthen this process by taking up parallel negotiations/talks about a final stage called Nuclear Weapons Convention.
Thus governments could signal their willingness to renounce nuclear weapons, build up mechanisms that need to be added to achieve a comprehensive and non-discriminatory agreement.
The idea of a Nuclear Weapons Convention gets more and more support. Last Year the Interparliamentary Union passed a resolution which supported a convention. The Australian rapporteur Roger Price noted in his report:
“While strengthening the current nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime in essential, there is a growing impetus towards a comprehensive approach to the nuclear issue. Such an approach could bring together the three pillars of the NPT, possibly in a Nuclear Weapons Convention”
Strong support also comes from the report of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, led by Gareth Evans an Yoriko Kawaguchi.
Their recommendation on a Nuclear Weapons Convention is:
“Work should be commence now, supported by interested governments, on further refining and developing the concepts in the model convention now in circulation making its provisions as workable and realistic as possible, with the objective of having a fully-worked through draft available, to inform and guide multilateral disarmament negotiations as they gain momentum.”
The Commission notes that such a legal instrument will be necessary to accompany the final move to elimination. It is important to progressively build support for it.
To build support for it will be a necessary task for Parliamentarians supported by NGOs.
Without the admirable work of these people we would never have reached this point. Let’s use this window of opportunity to get nearer to the goal of Global Zero!
|
