Non-Proliferation, Disarmament and the NPT Review Conference

NACD Consultations

March 8 and 9th 2005

Debbie Grisdale

Non-proliferation, Disarmament and the NPT Review Conference

Thank you.

There is nothing new under the sun to be said about the threat from nuclear proliferation and the urgent need for concrete action on nuclear disarmament. So I will use a quotation from Mohamed ElBaradei the Director General of the IAEA.

I worry that, in our collective memories, the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have begun to fade. I worry about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists or ruthless dictators. I worry about nuclear weapons already in the arsenals of democracies - because as long as these weapons exist, there is no absolute guarantee against the disastrous consequences of their theft, sabotage or accidental launch, and even democracies are not immune to radical shifts in their security anxieties and nuclear policies.[1]

Non-proliferation

I would like to first commend the government for its recent decision not to participate in the US missile defence program. A system with many faults that have been well publicised, but for purposes of these discussions – the fact that BMD presumes the continued existence of nuclear weapons now and into the future was reason enough to oppose it.

It is not entirely clear why we said ‘no’ - for political or principled reasons or a bit of both.- but whatever the reason the bottom line is good. We will not participate formally in missile defence.

There are lessons to be learned from the campaign mounted by civil society in opposition to BMD, and many experiences to be analyzed. Some of the most active participants in the educational and awareness building activities of the campaign are in this room.

As of this past weekend with the phone call from President Bush to Prime Minister Martin, the US has signalled that Canada-US relations can move on from missile defence. It appears unlikely that there will be any long term ‘ill feelings’ by the US about our decision.

Canada has earned credibility and, dare I say, “diplomatic capital” on the world stage by making this decision and indicating that we do not support the US line of thinking regarding the nature of threats to our security or to that of North America. This capital can be used wisely in a number of international fora.

The United States has taken the issue of nuclear proliferation on the international stage seriously and created a number of initiatives to try to stop the spread of NW. While these are commendable, the world will not survive by non-proliferation alone; and as the saying goes – ‘think global and act local’ These initiatives are, of course important, but as long as some countries continue to possess nuclear weapons with impunity, others will want them. Efforts by any of the nuclear weapon states to draw attention away from obligations under Article VI to disarm must not go uncriticised.

The US specifically is

• Is developing a research program, still at the concept stage, for a large earth penetrating nuclear weapon that can burrow underground into hard rock before exploding
• Continuing to seek to reduce the time necessary to conduct a nuclear test to 18 months from a Presidential order to a test explosion in Nevada. Claiming that this has nothing to do with actual intentions to test is ludicrous
• Seeking to reduce funding for the CTBT organization by 30% - thereby effectively making the detection of illicit testing that much harder
• Attempting to have Mohamed El Baradei denied another term as Director General of the IAEA

The delicacies of international negotiations and the niceties of diplomatic protocol cannot be underestimated, but in instances where little heed is paid to international opinion the response must be strong an direct. Nuclear weapons are an abomination.

Those of us in civil society must continue to strive to take the moral initiative and find creative ways to assert our humanity and dignity as people whose lives and environment are affected by government inactivity. How do we generate that missing and critical political will and how do we effectively create that crucial awareness that we are only as safe as our neighbour. Our common security is jeopardized by these weapons with their catastrophic effects and if we do not realize that unless nuclear disarmament is undertaken by us all then proliferation will continue to occur and as William Sloane Coffin said “Either the world becomes nuclear-free or the whole planet becomes a nuclear porcupine.”[2]

Disarmament

Disarmament and non-proliferation have to be said in the same breath. These are 2 sides of the same coin. There was a bargain struck between the nuclear haves and the have-nots. They are two of the pillars of the NPT and if they are not given equal weight, the treaty teeters in danger of toppling as it does now. Etc etc

The nuclear weapon states must get on with their obligations to disarm and the countries that lie outside the NPT must be brought to the common table. The most likely scenario is to construct a new table, where countries can meet to discuss how to get on with concrete steps to reduce the nuclear threats that we are all exposed to.

The very existence of nuclear weapons gives rise to the pursuit of them. They are seen as a source of global influence, and are valued for their perceived deterrent effect. And as long as some countries possess them (or are protected by them in alliances) and others do not, this asymmetry breeds chronic global insecurity.

Mohamed ElBaradei, October 2003[3]

NPT Review Conference

The Review Conference begins in less than 8 weeks. There is much speculation about possible outcomes of the Conference – no one knows for sure and many fear the worst.

Canadians have developed a greater appetite for information regarding non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament issues as a result of the public debate and media attention given to missile defence. Now that we have their attention, let us seize this opportunity and build public awareness that the continued existence of nuclear weapons represents the greatest threat to public and environmental health.

Before the start of the Conference it would be constructive for Canada to make available a statement outlining what is its position is going into the Review Conference, what are Canada’s goals and hopes for the outcome and what will be Canadian strategies to achieve them.

Preparations are reaching a higher level of intensity among civil society as the opening date for the Conference gets closer. Initiatives to build awareness within civil society and to identify ways for their voices to be heard are being developed. These voices include

• Mayors – several Canadian Mayors have committed to being in NY at the beginning of the Conference as part of a delegation of Mayors for Peace
• Parliamentarians the ParliamentaryNetwork for Nuclear Disarmament (PNND) is planning activities in NY– several Canadian Parliamentarians have expressed interest in attending
• Ordinary Canadians are making their voices heard through signing Declarations in support of the 1996 advisory opinion of the World Court demanding negotiations be started leading to the abolition of nuclear weapons under strict and effective international control …. These signed declarations will be presented in New York
• Buses are being organized so Canadians can take part in the March on May 1st to show governments around the world that we demand that they get on with concrete steps for nuclear disarmament

I would like to close by proposing options for outcomes of the NPT Review Conference

• Prevent backsliding on any of the decisions achieved at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences
• Undertake, urgently, steps for nuclear weapons to be taken off high alert, and including an immediate end to launch-on-warning status
• Press for the establishment of a subsidiary body at the Conference on Disarmament to deal with nuclear disarmament
• Begin and rapidly conclude negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material
• Continue strong support for strengthening the institutional underpinnings of the Treaty to make it more accountable and more responsive to our changing world and to make it more sustainable. I include in here greater NGO access to the process of conducting the business of the treaty’
• And prior to the start of and during the course of the Conference, make available briefing materials on the NPT in general, the importance of this Review Conference and regular updates in particular to MPs, Senators, the media and the public. Their support of Canadian activities will be very important

I started with Mohamed ElBaradei and I will finish with a quote from the same article he wrote:

I worry, but I also hope. I hope that a side-effect of globalisation will be an enduring realisation that there is only one human race, to which we all belong. I hope that dynamic leaders within national governments, international institutions and civil society will step forward with the vision, the integrity and the will to reverse the inertia of fear and insecurity. …..[4]

1

[1] ElBaradei Mohamed16 October 2003, Op-Ed, published in The Economist Towards a Safer World

[2] Coffin, William Sloane. Credo Westminster John Knox Press. 2004

[3]ElBaradei MohamedOp-Ed, published in The Economist Towards a Safer World, 16 October 2003,

[4] Ibid