Commitment and Action Jonathan Granoff, President Global Security Institute Presentation to international conference “From a Nuclear Test Ban to a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World”, Astana, Kazakhstan Organized by the Mazhilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament August 27-29, 2012 There are now five nuclear weapons-free zones with over 112 countries covering Latin America and the Caribbean (the 1969 Treaty of Tlatelolco), the South Pacific (the 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga), Southeast Asia (the 1995 Treaty of Bangkok) Africa (the 1996 Treaty of Pelindaba), and Central Asia (the 2006 Treaty of Semipalatinsk).
Kazakhstan’s contribution to making this region nuclear weapons-free by first getting rid of its arsenal and then leading efforts to obtain the current nuclear weapons-free zone treaty is an appropriate success story for its on-going contribution to global nuclear disarmament. A proper expression of gratitude to Kazakhstan—particularly President Nusultan Nazarbayev, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Mazhilis of the Parliament of Kazakhstan who have so graciously convened these current deliberations—is commitment and action.
On April 30, 2010, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressed the Second Conference of States Parties and Signatories to Treaties that Establish Nuclear Weapon-Free-Zones and described the contribution of these zones to world security perfectly: “Nuclear-weapon-free zones are the success stories of the disarmament movement. You are leading by example.” The planet’s southern hemisphere is virtually a nuclear weapons free zone. “My goal—our goal—is to make the whole world a nuclear weapon-free zone.”
The most pressing threats we face today are global in nature. Economic, political, and environmental realities demand international cooperation. Such efforts must be based on equity, justice, law, and regard for the welfare of all. Security must become redefined from being a purely national endeavor to being a global public good.
Today, regarding nuclear weapons, an incident anywhere effects everyone everywhere. A nuclear exchange in South Asia becomes an international catastrophe and a local incident everywhere for its impact on the global climate would precipitate catastrophic consequences such as nuclear winter, massive famines, and disruption of the delicate balance of social relations we call civilization. Can South Asia become a nuclear weapons-free zone? Pakistan will not eliminate its nuclear weapons because of India; India because of China; China because of Russia; and Russia because of the United States. The only solution to this threat to our common security is through global, total, irreversible and verifiable nuclear disarmament.
The “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate nuclear weapons made by the nuclear weapons states at the 2000 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference was reaffirmed at the NPT 2010 Review Conference as a concrete task for all States to undertake, indeed, the parties to the NPT agreed that “All States should make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons” noting the UN Secretary-General’s Five Point Plan for nuclear disarmament including the proposal for a nuclear weapons convention. Further, they recognized that this work is “urgent” and must be made “concrete.”
Yes, the START treaty is worthy of our praise and appreciation, and even the US Nuclear Posture Review calls for a “commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world” and the initiation of “a comprehensive national research and development program to support continued progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons.” We would however be negligent if we ignored the fact that nearly every state with nuclear weapons is upgrading, expanding, or modernizing their nuclear arsenals. We can also expect that without the momentum of progress towards the universal, legally verifiable and enforceable elimination of nuclear weapons we will again and again be faced with revisiting the issue of whether nuclear weapons should be abolished. This debate, as in the past, will take place in the context of a proliferation crisis de jour.
The reality is that we have an incoherent, unstable non-proliferation regime that will inevitably breed another proliferation crisis. Today, that instability manifests in the Middle East with the focus on Iran and Israel. Tomorrow, if we do not act, it will be another crisis de jour. It is the cloud of fear arising from each crisis that forces us back to the debate over whether to disarm, not how. The only solution to stopping this cycle is to have the clear focus of a framework of instruments or a convention banning nuclear weapons. It is time now to begin the preparatory work on a convention or framework.
Today such progress is unlikely to come from either Moscow or Washington. These capitals will not commence this work nor join in it until the political currency of disarmament becomes more valuable than the currency of nuclear weapons brandishing. Additionally, when the weapons are devalued (and disarmed), non-proliferation will be strengthened.
Upgrading advocacy to the highest levels of state has now become a necessity and it is within our grasp to make that happen. Powerful interventions are now imperative. By any rational analysis the nuclear nonproliferation disarmament regime is presently in a logjam and suffering from a crisis of insufficient productivity.
When the Cold War produced such a crisis in the 1980s, the Six Nation Initiative helped break a deadly spiral driven by the Soviet Union and the United States. Heads of state of Greece, India, Sweden, Tanzania, Mexico, and Argentina made quiet diplomatic interventions to Moscow and Washington, at the highest levels and to good effect. Beginning in 1984, they persisted until 1989. The process was begun by Parliamentarians for Global Action but, once the pump was primed, heads of state picked up their own momentum. Practical suggestions helped move the two superpowers toward clear progress.
The need for similar effort today is clear. The issue of eliminating nuclear weapons must be re-addressed at the highest political level. The message has already been crafted with clarity and eloquence. This opportunity must be seized, the gravity of the moment recognized, and the passion and capacity to raise advocacy for the universal, legally verifiable and enforceable non-discriminatory elimination of nuclear weapons must be raised up the political ladder.
Every parliamentarian, as every aware citizen, must push for commitment and action at the highest level. From private meetings to the UN General Assembly debates, speaker after speaker must demand, “It is time to eliminate the threat of nuclear annihilation by eliminating nuclear weapons.” Every one of us must do our part.
THE SIX-NATION INITIATIVE (SNI) 1984-1989
Mission and Focus
Monitored the arms control negotiations of the two superpowers – the USA and the USSR – with a focus on advocating steps toward nuclear disarmament (especially the banning of nuclear tests).1
Key Players
* Formed by the NGO Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA).
Originally called Parliamentarians for World Order, PGA is “a worldwide network of parliamentarians dedicated to advancing disarmament and development issues.” 2
* Some leaders were chosen because, although being aligned with either the Soviet Union or the United States, they had demonstrated an ability to pursue initiatives and action independent of the superpowers.3
To maintain a sense of international legitimacy, other leaders were chosen for their affiliation with the non-aligned movement (NAM).4 The SNI was ultimately comprised of the Heads of State and Government of:
o Argentina: President Raul Alfonsin
o Greece: Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou
o India: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (1917-1984); succeeded by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi
o Mexico: President Miguel de la Madrid
o Sweden: Prime Minister Olaf Palme
o Tanzania: President Julius Nyerere
Strategy, Highlights and Achievements
* Following the breakdown of US-USSR disarmament negotiations, “all six leaders of the SNI signed a Call for Action and met together in New Delhi in 1984 to press the two superpowers to stop nuclear testing and get on with [disarmament] negotiations. The SNI became…an effective channel for the views of many governments, parliaments, and citizens working for common security. The Initiative could not, of course, take sole credit for the resumption of Soviet-American negotiations…but it was an important element in demonstrating world support for nuclear disarmament to the two superpowers.”5
* Provided a focal point for NGO communities working on nuclear disarmament by serving as “a vocal, persistent and authentic voice for nuclear disarmament.”6
* Proposed in 1988 that the UN General Assembly commission a report outlining a UN verification system. This proposal was merged with another resolution drafted by Canada, France, and the Netherlands. The result was a final resolution asking the Secretary-General to prepare a comprehensive report on the role of the United Nations in verification.7
* October 25 1988, delegates “presented a concrete proposal…[for] the endorsement, in principle, of [a multilateral] international verification agency within the United Nations.”8 The draft resolution was entitled "Verification within the United Nations."
* Through its work as a third party arbiter, the SNI helped to revive dialogue on disarmament between the USA and USSR. One example of such work was the SNI’s support of and help with facilitating negotiations on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which eliminated all nuclear-armed ground launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers and their infrastructure - the first nuclear arms control agreement to actually reduce nuclear arms, rather than establish ceilings that could not be exceeded.9
1. Vajpayee, Shri Atal Bihari. Address by the Prime Minister of India at the XII Non-Aligned Movement Summit. Durban, South Africa. September 1998. [Available courtesy Federation of American Scientists, http://www.fas.org/news/india/1998/09/980903-pmdurban.htm]
2. Roche, Douglas. Scrapping the Bomb: The Role of Middle Power Countries. The Ploughshares Monitor. Vol. 18, No. 3. September 1997
3. Frangonikolopoulos, Christos. Six Nation Initiative for Disarmament: A Third Party in the Arms Control Process. The Kent Papers in Politics and International Relations. The University of Kent. 1992. [Available at http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/research/kentpapers/Frangonikolopoulos.html]
4. Ibid.
5. Roche, Scrapping the Bomb.
6. Dubey, Muchkund. For Nuclear Disarmament. The Hindu. March 6, 2004. [Available at http://www.southasianmedia.net/index_opinion4.cfm?id=23556]
7. Dorn, A. Walter. U.N. Should Verify Treaties. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Vol. 46, No. 6. July/August 1990. page 13
8. Rao, Mr. P. V. Narasimha. United Nations 17th Plenary Meeting, 43th Session. October 4, 1988. [Available at http://www.un.int/india/ind191.htm]
9. Frangonikolopoulos. Six Nation Initiative for Disarmament, and Anonymous. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces [INF]. Federation of American Scientists website. http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/