The five-yearly conference reviewing the world’s major treaty on nuclear weapons managed to just squeak out a consensus declaration on Friday after a month of deliberations. Diplomats, politicians and NGO activists all seemed to breathe a sigh of relief that it hadn’t ended in disarray like the last one did in 2005.
189 nations reaffirmed their commitment to eliminating all nuclear weapons and set a 2012 deadline for holding a regional conference to eliminate nuclear weapons from the Middle East.
But one thing is clear: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (aka NPT) is not going to rid the world of nuclear weapons any time soon.
The negotiations in New York showed it was in many ways business as usual. The P4 nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK and France) circled the wagons and stripped out most of the text that would have committed them to specific actions to reduce their arsenals. This, as it always does, gave the unofficial nuclear states (India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel) the excuse to do nothing about reducing theirs.
The final result? A lot of vague and aspirational statements. And given that the nuclear states made almost no progress on the last set of commitments made in 2000, it doesn’t give much hope that the NPT will deliver progress on the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.
There are two main reasons. First, the “recognised” and the “unofficial” nuclear weapons states are stuck in gridlock. Second, in this kind of situation the consensus-based approach of the UN inevitably produces a lowest common denominator result because it hands an effective veto to the most intransigent negotiator.
Which is why there is now a growing move to launch a parallel process to prepare a Nuclear Weapons Convention – a new global treaty designed to lead to the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. Advocates argue that the treaties that led to the successful global bans on landmines and cluster munitions offer a useful model in which like-minded governments and civil society lead the way, mobilising international opinion to stigmatise the weapons and over time recruit a majority of states to the cause.
Nuclear weapons of course are different. Nuclear deterrence is still key to the military strategies of the super powers and the elimination of nuclear weapons will require new thinking to take the place of deterrence.
In a speech last night to the Institute of International Affairs Labour leader Phil Goff called for the Government to join the group of nations pushing for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. At the review conference in New York an overwhelming majority of nations endorsed the idea of a Convention, and Phil said New Zealand should work with countries like Switzerland, Norway and Austria who were leading the way.
He said the National Government had been disappointingly timid in this area. New Zealand officials at the NPT Review in New York did some good work on the conference floor forging agreement among the parties, but New Zealand was too quiet when it came to advocating a more comprehensive and determined effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
Down with nukes!
So the non nuclear powers form an independent group to say there should be no nuclear weapons at all, while they continue to be members in the existing non proliferation group?
Is there realistic hope of nations switching to the new “Convention” group camp or more liklihood of some nations, such as Iran, moving into the non proliferation group?
Nuclear destruction in any form is abominable, from the dirty projectiles used in iraq back to the dropping of bombs in Japan.
The madness of the coldwar has yet to be exposed with full public access to information revealing the motives and movers involved with the weapons industry.
If National does not give a loud and positive signal against retention of any Nuclear weapons, then why is the question. Who are they in bed with.
It is not a negotiable issue.
NZ & Australian Servicemen, British servicemen and others have been exposed to damaging radiation as have thousands of Pacific Islanders and US citizens in peacetime experimentation with nuclear devices.
The radiation damage is passed on through the children.
The horror of nuclear legacy is obviously little appreciated.
Oxford Union Debate 1985 – Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible
Prob not a popular viewpoint, but I suggest that nuclear weapons have deterred the major powers from having direct goes at each other like they used to. (Smaller proxy wars instead).
Of course, we do not need thousands of the damn things, either on active duty or in deep storage.
I don’t foresee the nuclear powers getting rid of their nukes any time in the near future. I’m not sure if we’ll ever get rid of them. The problem is that they do give those nations too much power.
Israel aren’t about to give up theirs.
Depleted uranium, now there’s a problem we could all be addressing today.
Spot on Loota, I believe it was abbreviated to MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.
@ SPC – Yes I think there is realistic hope that many nations will back the Convention. A majority spoke in support of it at the Review Conference. The 118 nation Non Aligned Movement are already backing it, and now a small but growing number of western countries including NATO member Norway, and Austria and Switzerland.
@ Tracey – I have a bill banning depleted uranium weapons in the members’ ballot.
India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel…
Why are these states unofficial, all but Isreal have had confirmed successful tests that I know of, what do they have to do to become official…
Its coming up to 70 years since the completion of the Manhattan Project, that project was completed by using the equivalent of semi-mechanical calculators, and its quite remarkable that even more countries haven’t gained nuclear weapons technology since then.
Cool Phil. Problem is that we can ban it, but when a major “goodie” wont admit it, or allow decent examination…
The USA stands for a lot of things, some good some not so good (we all have views on that). The problem with sticking your head and chest out is you get noticed and held to stuff. Israel is a contradiction for them, has been since its inception, and depleted uranium is like agent orange, only today
@Loota, I guess they aren’t making any more Nazi Rocket scientists..?
Sure Phil the Convention group will be popular – nearly all nations will sign up – all except the official and unoffical nuclear powers.
But we can expect the “unofficial” group to be joined by Iran – and so they will join India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan in the “non proliferation” group – which will claim they are not part of the ME and support the policy of a nuclear free ME from that vantage point.