|
General E-News Advisories
2003
Archives
2008 | 2007
| 2006 | 2005
| 2004 | 2003
Subscribe to the Reaching Critical Will General
E-News Advisories:
send an email to the Project
Associate, subject line "subscribe e-news"
February 6, 2003:
1) Columbia
Shuttle Disaster and Implications for Disarmament
2)
US Secretary of State Powell Briefs UN Security Council
February 10, 2003
NPT
PrepCom 2003 Invitation to NGOs
February 18, 2003
1)
Blix and ElBaradei Report to Security Council
2)
DPRK and US Nuclear Policy Proposals
3)
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan Gives Vocal Support to NGOs
March 10, 2003
1)
Iraq Update
2)
SORT Signed
3)
RCW Website News
April 22, 2003
1)
DDA Launches Gender Action Mainstreaming Plan
2)
Disarmament Commission 2003 Session Draws to a Close
3)
NPT Update
May 1, 2003
NPT
Update from Geneva
May 27, 2003
NPT
PrepCom: One Week Later
July 25, 2003 (1)
1)
Proliferation Security Initiative: Securing Proliferation?
2)
CTBT Entry-Into-Force Conference Information
3)
Hiroshima and Nagasaki Days
July 25, 2003 (2)
1)
Israeli official reportedly threatens to pre-emptively attack Iran's
nuclear facilities
2)
Iranian officials threaten to withdraw from NPT if attacked
September 2, 2003
1) CTBT EIF Conference
Begins: Sign-on to NGO statement
2) Email news
3) Countries on
the IAEA Agenda
September 15, 2003
1) WILPF Report on CTBT Conference
2) First Committee Update
September 22, 2003
1) A New Look: The New Reaching Critical
Will Website
2) Secretary-General's Report on the Organization
October 1, 2003
1) Disarmament Index: References to Security
in GA statements
2) NGO Briefings for the First Committee
3) Information for the Latin American Nuclear
Weapon Free Zone Conference, Havana, Cuba
4) Nuclear Abolition Events at the World
Social Forum, Mumbai, India, January 2004
October 8, 2003
1) RCW First Committee Update, including
Press Release on opening day
December 2, 2003
1) First Committee Update
2) Conference of the States Parties to the
Biological Weapons Convention
December 16, 2003
1) The General Assembly votes on First Committee
resolutions
2) Reaching Critical Will at the World Social
Forum
3) NGO Committee on Disarmament (Geneva)
hosts a panel discussion on the NPT
4) NPT 2004: Preparations for the PrepCom
are underway
***********
December 16, 2003
Dear Reaching Critical Will friends and advisors,
The holiday season is just about here. So, just before you turn
off your computers to celebrate the New Year with your friends and
family, Reaching Critical Will provides you with all of the information
you need to wrap up 2003 and look forward to the incoming year.
Remember that all news advisories from 2003 are archived on our
site at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/action/Advisories.html.
This will be the last advisory for the 2003 archive.
In this advisory:
I. The General Assembly votes on First Committee resolutions
II. Reaching Critical Will at the World Social Forum
III. NGO Committee on Disarmament (Geneva) hosts
a panel discussion on the NPT
IV. NPT 2004: Preparations for the PrepCom are underway:
How to get involved
1. NGOs and the NPT Review Process
2. NGO Presentations and Strategy
3. Calendar of Events
4. NGO Daily Reports: A Call for Submissions
5. NPT Background Information
Normally, we try to send out briefer, more frequent news advisories.
But we figure we'll start your new year off with a good heap of
information.
As always, if you have any questions, comments, or concerns about
any of the items featured below, never hesitate to contact us.
In peace,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
I. The General Assembly votes on First
Committee resolutions
Last week, the General Assembly took a vote on the draft resolutions
adopted by the First Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security.
A vote on draft resolution L.1, "The illicit trade in small
arms and light weapons in all its aspects", submitted by Japan,
Colombia and South Africa has been delayed. The draft resolution
was passed by the First Committee with 162 votes in favor, no votes
in abstention, and just one, solitary vote cast by the United States,
in opposition. The delay is attributed to a delay in the work of
the Fifth Committee, which must factor in the costs of a conference
on tracing the illicit trade in SALW, as called for in the draft
resolution.
To read more about draft resolution L.1 and others, see the Final
Edition of the First Committee Monitor in HTML http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/FCM/finalreport.html
or in PDF: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/FCM/finalreport.pdf.
Read the texts and voting results of all resolutions at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/res/resindex.htm.
If you want to receive the NGO reports in the First Committee Monitor
next year, send an email to: 1comsubscribe@reachingcriticalwill.org.
For more NGO analysis on the First Committee, see Rebecca Johnson's
report at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/un/index.htm.
II. Reaching Critical Will at the World
Social Forum
WILPF's RCW project, in collaboration with Abolition 2000 and the
World Peace Council, is organizing an anti-nuclear panel discussion
to be held at the World Social Forum on January 16-21, in Mumbai,
India. The purpose of the event is to raise awareness of international
disarmament efforts among civil society groups across the globe,
and to engage activists, academics, and community leaders in disarmament
and nonproliferation fora and to promote a world free from the nuclear
threat.
The event, which pulls together anti-nuclear activists from around
the world, is structured in three segments. The first segment features
nuclear experts from Europe, the US, and Southeast Asia, who will
discuss nuclear policy and practice in their regions of the world,
and relate it to the global framework on disarmament, peace and
security. The second segment will look at what the anti-nuclear
movement is doing on a global scale to combat these genocidal, ecocidal,
and suicidal weapons. The last segment will discuss what peoples
are doing on a local level to disarm their own communities, including
citizens weapons inspections, youth-lead initiatives, street demonstrations
and more.
To get involved in this event and others at the WSF, contact Rhianna
Tyson or Al
Marder.
To learn more about the World Social Forum, visit: www.wsfindia.org.
For all other RCW-related inquiries during the month of January,
contact the WILPF UNO Director, Susi
Snyder, as Rhianna will be in South Asia, preparing for this
event.
III. NGO Committee on Disarmament (Geneva)
hosts a panel discussion on the NPT
The Geneva-based NGO Committee on Disarmament hosted a two-day panel
discussion last week entitled, "Full-Spectrum Compliance Under
the NPT." Well-attended by many in the diplomatic and NGO communities,
the event looked at various ways of ensuring compliance, including
an in-depth presentation by the IAEA's Tariq Rauf, an examination
of the NPT-CD relationship, analysis of US nuclear policy, and a
strategy session looking towards the 2004 PrepCom and the 2005 Review
Conference.
Reaching Critical Will's Rhianna Tyson delivered a presentation
entitled, "Addressing Compliance within the United Nations
System: Present and future prospects." The following is an
excerpt from that speech:
"If our question today is compliance, two aspects cannot
be emphasized enough: that any discussion on compliance must give
equal weight to all articles of the Treaty- the nonproliferation
requirements AND the disarmament requirements. For vertical proliferators
to accuse non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) of non-compliance, and
then use their questionable evidence and patchy national intelligence
to declare the NPT a failure is illogical and unjust. We must- as
disarmament experts and diplomats- utilize the United Nations and
all of the tools at its disposal to work to discredit nuclear weapons
as a primary source of security.
"The second aspect that must be stressed is the value of civil
society in these efforts. Civil society can help build the internal
pressure on governments necessary for them to act in good faith
on their agreements "
To read the full-text of the presentation, see: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/genevaspch.html.
IV. NPT 2004: Preparations for the PrepCom
are underway
It's that time again- time for disarmament NGOs to begin their
preparations for the 2004 Preparatory Committee conference of States
Parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, held in New York,
April 26- May 7. Reaching Critical Will has just re-organized its
NPT webpage to make it
more navigable, and to make it easier for you and your organization
to participate in this important conference.
Click here to learn more
about the NPT and the Review Process.
1. NGOs and the NPT Review Process
NGOs have provided invaluable insight and expertise to the NPT
conferences in the past, and our influence is growing. It is imperative
that committed NGOs attend or have input into this critical PrepCom,
out of which will emerge a consensus draft of recommendations for
the 2005 Review Conference. NGOs are vital players that explain
the issues, draw attention to some important problems, and put pressure
on the States Parties to achieve a successful outcome.
In the upcoming weeks, the Secretariat of the conference- the WMD
branch of the Department for Disarmament Affairs- will issue an
aide memoire to NGOs wishing to participate in the PrepCom. The
aide memoire will include a registration form and other information
needed for accreditation. The DDA has not yet begun accepting applications,
but you must be aware of the necessity of the application procedure.
Future RCW alerts will inform you of developments. If you are not
subscribed now, please do so by sending an email to:
subscribe@reachingcriticalwill.org.
Engage your representatives on NPT matters now! Write to your Minister
of Foreign Affairs (or equivalent), CC it to your ambassadors in
New York and Geneva, and encourage them to attend the conference
to publicly urge the Nuclear Weapon States to uphold their Article
VI promise! Consult our Governmental
Database for their contact information.
2. NGO Presentations and Strategy
NGOs are designated one, three-hour session to deliver presentations
to the delegates during the morning of April 28. These statements
are collectively drafted and edited by the community of NGOs. If
you want to participate in the drafting process, you must send an
email to: NGOpresentations-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
For the month of January, we will be focusing on brainstorming topics
and issues for discussion at the PrepCom. At the end of January,
we will be deciding on the topics, and convenors for each of the
topics will be chosen to draft the statements.
To read last year's NGO presentations at the PrepCom, see: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/NGOpres2003index.htm.
In addition, NGOs have created another listserve by which we are
discussing a new strategy for the 2004 PrepCom and the upcoming
Review Conference in 2005. What are we hoping for in 2005? What
recommendations will we give to the States Parties in 2004? How
can we ensure that their disarmament obligation will finally be
realized? Join this important discussion by sending an email to:
npt-outreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
If you have any trouble subscribing to these listserves, contact
the RCW Project Associate.
This year, NGOs based in New York are organizing a massive street
presence in the city the first week of the PrepCom, to demonstrate
that the world is watching and we are holding our governments accountable
to the NPT promise. Visit the site: www.1may04.org
and see how you can get involved!
3. Calendar of Events
If you or your organization wishes to organize a panel, workshop,
reception, or other meeting, be sure to book your time slot now!
Consult the Calendar of Events at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/events.html
and schedule your event by sending an email to: rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org.
The calendar has been open for just two days, and already the slots
are filling up quickly. Room number will be confirmed at a later
date.
4. NGO Daily Reports: A Call for Submissions
Reaching Critical Will publishes a daily newsletter, The News In
Review, throughout the entire two weeks of the PrepCom. The NIRs
offer a range of NGO perspectives on the NPT, including daily reports
of the conference proceedings, feature analyses of disarmament issues,
interviews with diplomats and NGO representatives, anti-nuclear
cartoons, daily calendars of events and other notices, and much
more! See archived News in Reviews at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/nirindex.html.
Submit a feature article today! We are looking for articles no longer
than 1,000 words, on any topic related to the international disarmament
regime. We are also collecting cartoons, drawings, pictures, graphics,
and other artistic expressions of the world's desire for nuclear
disarmament. Please include your name, organization/affiliation,
and contact information.
Send all submissions to: NIR@reachingcriticalwill.org.
5. NPT Background Information
Be sure to check out RCW's newly revamped NPT
webpage, which features background information on the Treaty,
the text of the NPT, information on PrepCom participation, NGO links,
inter-governmental links, summaries of the 1995 and 2000 Review
Conferences, texts of the Final Documents including the historical
13 Steps, talking points and more.
If you have any questions regarding the PrepCom, or if you would
like to know more about how your organization can more effectively
participate at the conference, never hesitate to contact us.
***********
December 2, 2003
Dear Reaching Critical Will friends and advisors,
With winter rolling in and two major disarmament fora concluding
their year’s work, we at Reaching Critical Will are busy wrapping
up events from the autumn and preparing for 2004. While the GA First
Committee and the Biological Weapons Conference are adjourning,
the UN Disarmament Commission will begin setting an agenda in the
upcoming weeks, and NGOs are already busy with preparations for
the NPT in the spring.
In this News Advisory:
1. First Committee Update
2. Conference of the States Party to the Biological Weapons Convention
Also, I would like to send out a personal apology for a botched
“auto-reply” function on my email account, which sent
dozens of blank emails to nearly all RCW subscribers and friends
last week. The problem was quickly corrected, but not after it clogged
up inboxes around the world. Please accept my most humble apologies.
In peace,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
1. First Committee Update
Throughout the five weeks of the General Assembly First Committee
on Disarmament and International Peace, Reaching Critical Will,
in collaboration with other NY-based NGOs, published a weekly newsletter,
The First Committee Monitor. A Compendium of all five editions of
The Monitor is now available on-line at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/FCM/FCMindex.htm.
We urge all readers of The Monitor- diplomats, activists, and academics-
to fill out a quick and easy Evaluative Questionnaire, available
at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/FCM/questionnaire.htm.
Let us know how you used the Monitor in your work. Tell us how you
perceived the portrayal of your government in the publication. Most
importantly, let us know how we can improve this reporting service
next year.
On Monday, December 8, the General Assembly will vote on the resolutions
adopted by the First Committee last month. The results of the votes
will be immediately posted on-line at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/res/resindex.htm.
You can also find the texts of the resolutions, the voting results
in the First Committee, and all available explanations of votes
on this site as well.
2. Conference of the States Party to the Biological Weapons Convention
The 151 States Parties to the BTWC met in Geneva, November 10-14,
2003. Ambassador Tibor Tóth of Hungary chaired the meeting.
The Reaching Critical Will website now features all documents produced
at the conference, including the provisional agenda, working papers,
a list of participants, and more. See our biological weapons page
at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/bw/biolindex.html.
Has your country ratified the BTWC? See the list of States Parties
at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/bio/sps.htm.
For more information on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention,
see Reaching Critical Will’s comprehensive list of resources
at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/bw/biolindex.html#sources.
October 8, 2003
The United Nations General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament
began this Monday, October 6. WILPF's Reaching Critical Will project
has teamed up with the likes of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear
Policy, the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Amnesty International,
Global Action to Prevent War, Quakers UN Office, Pax Christie, Abolition
2000, and Franciscans International to provide you with the most
comprehensive and in-depth reporting on the First Committee around.
To receive the weekly reports prepared by this powerhouse coalition,
be sure to send an email to: 1comsubscribe@reachingcriticalwill.org,
and indicate if you would prefer to receive the reports in PDF,
HTML, or Plain Text.
This News Advisory includes a summary of what RCW is doing throughout
the First Committee, and we invite you all to take full advantage
of our resources.
All information relating to the First Committee are available at:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1comindex1.html.
1) We're Here for You Even When You Can't Be
First and foremost, Reaching Critical Will is a service provider
to other disarmament NGOs around the world who can't be in New York
during these events. If you have any reports, flyers, or other materials
that you would like distributed at the First Committee, please contact
us and we will be the NGO-In-Your-Stead. We can also focus in on
the UN media or particular missions that you want to have your materials.
Contact us through email, fax, or phone- all contact information
is at the bottom of this email.
2) We Are Your First Committee Repository
All statements, press releases, draft resolutions, and other UN
documents are made available on our website by the end of the day.
*Statements are available in PDF here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/statementindex03.htm.
*Press Releases are here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/press.htm
*UN Documents are available here: http://www.un.org/ga/58/first/doc1.html
*and keep checking for resolutions here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1comindex1.html.
3) We Got What You Need
Any other requests that you might have pertaining to First Committee,
please never hesitate to contact us. We will gladly fax or email
you any other documents that might be floating around the United
Nations that is important to your work. We are here to help you.
4) We Know Where The Party's At
Our Calendar of Events during the First Committee is growing exponentially.
Please have a look to see where the next reception, book launch,
panel or workshop will be held at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/03cal.htm.
In addition, if you or your organization is holding an event during
the month of October, please let us know and we will gladly post
it on our calendar.
I'll conclude this news advisory with a brief press release from
the UN News Service, which quotes Mr. Nobuyasu Abe, the Under-Secretary-General
for Disarmament Affairs, from his opening statement to the Committee.
In peace,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
Reaching Critical Will
COUNTRIES NEED TO BOOST GLOBAL SECURITY, UN OFFICIAL TELLS
DISARMAMENT
PANEL
New York, Oct 6 2003 6:00PM
United Nations Member States need to explore practical methods of
strengthening world security with particular urgency at a time when
recent events had shown that people outside of government could
produce
and use weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), a senior UN official
said
today.
Addressing the General Assembly's Disarmament and International
Security
Committee, Under Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Nobuyasu
Abe
said, "We may not be able to fully resolve all the disarmament,
non-proliferation, arms control and counter-terrorism issues that
will
arise about these weapons," but he hoped that progress could
be made in
agreeing on concrete and practical measure to strengthen global
norms.
While the WMDs posed a great danger, conventional weapons, such
as small
arms and landmines, caused untold numbers of casualties each year
and
the UN continued to be the focus of efforts to increase transparency
and
build confidence, he said.
Disarmament instruments and institutions needed to be seen as legitimate
and norms needed to be enforced, Mr. Abe said. If not, the world
would
continue to find it difficult to promote multilateral cooperation
and
discourage the resort to unilateral action.
********************************
October 1, 2003
In this Advisory:
1) Disarmament Index: References to security in General Assembly
statements
2) NGO Briefings for the First Committee
3) Information for the Latin American Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Conference,
Havana, Cuba, 5-6 November, 2003
4) Nuclear Abolition Events at the World Social Forum, Mumbai, India,
January 2004
As always, if you have any questions, concerns, or comments, never
hesitate to contact us.
In peace,
Rhianna
Project Associate
Reaching Critical Will
**********************************
1) Disarmament Index on the Reaching Critical Will Website
During the first two weeks of the General Assembly, each Member
State delivers a statement to the entire body. While often of a
general nature, these statements provide insight into the issues,
priorities, problems and potential solutions that will be presented
by the Member States in the different Committees of the GA and throughout
the next year.
Reaching Critical Will has compiled an Index of these statements
that make reference to disarmament, non-proliferation, and international
security. This resource is available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com03/disarmindex03.htm.
On October 6, it will also be available in PDF.
PeaceWomen, another project
of the WILPF UN Office, is compiling a Gender Index of all GA statements
that reference gender, women, and Security
Council Resolution 1325.
NGOs from around the world share the concerns of many governments
about the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction, increased
military expenditures and the trade in armaments. The ongoing conflicts
in over 35 countries, as well as global concerns about terrorism,
have made the work of the First Committee even more urgently relevant.
NGOs will continue to offer analysis and constructive input while
providing public education on the work of the United Nations General
Assembly. We look forward to working closely with official governmental
delegations, United Nations staff and the broad NGO community in
this 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
2) NGOs Brief the World
Some NGOs have prepared briefing books and other useful resources
just in time for the First Committee.
The Center for Non-proliferation Studies at Monterrey Institute
for International Studies has prepared an Inventory of International
Non-proliferation Organizations and Regimes, which is available
in PDF or in a CD-ROM: http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/inven/index.htm.
In their words, "The Inventory of International Nonproliferation
Organizations and Regimes uses a broad definition of international
organizations, treaties, and agreements relevant to weapons of mass
destruction disarmament and nonproliferation activities. It includes
formal organizations, non-charter regimes, multilateral groupings
of states, international treaties, and regional and bilateral arrangements.
The updated version for the first time also includes international
treaties related to terrorism as well as treaties and agreements
designed to prevent the spread of conventional weapons. It also
includes specific references to the verification and compliance
provisions of relevant organizations and treaties, and detail on
organization and treaty memberships of selected States.
"The Inventory is designed to cover all actual and potential
international organizations and other nonproliferation regimes,
and their existing institutional ties, inter-relationships, and
overlapping areas of responsibility. It provides descriptions of
each organization, treaty, and agreement as well as summaries of
recent activities and contact information. Treaty texts are also
provided and other appendices show the membership and status of
key treaties and agreements. The Inventory provides policymakers,
diplomats, government officials, analysts, researchers, journalists,
and students with a useful general reference source and a current
synopsis of developments in international nonproliferation organizations
and regimes."
For more information, contact Jean
DuPreez, Director of International Organizations and Nonproliferation
Program at CNS.
The Parliamentarian Network for Nuclear
Disarmament, a project of the Global
Security Institute, has put together a comprehensive briefing
on nuclear issues and will soon be available on their website. You
can also receive a copy by contacting Alyn
Ware, Global Coordinator for PNND.
The briefing, designed to provide up-to-date information on nuclear
disarmament issues and on the ways that parliamentarians can become
engaged in the disarmament process includes:
*basic information on nuclear weapons and their effects;
*technical, political, and legal issues relating to nuclear disarmament;
*outlines of current nuclear weapons agreements;
*descriptions of national and international arenas in which parliamentarians
can exert influence or become engaged; and
*explores some disarmament proposals and plans.
Divided into one or two page chapters, each section can be copied
and used as a stand-alone fact sheet to circulate to other parliamentarians
as background to support parliamentary actions on the specific topic.
For more information on the PNND, visit their website at www.pnnd.org.
Is your parliamentarian hooked up to the network?
3) Information for the Latin American Nuclear Weapon Free
Zone Conference
The Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America
and the Caribbean will be holding a General Conference 5-6 November,
2003, in La Habana, Cuba.
NGOs wishing to participate as Observer must contact Edumondo
Vargas, Secretary-General of OPANAL.
The
Provisional Agenda is available here
The
Registration Form is available here
Read
the text of the Tlatelolco Treaty at the Arms Control Association
4) Nuclear Abolition Events at the World Social Forum
Abolition 2000 and its member organizations have been planning to
hold anti-nuclear events at the World Social Forum in Mumbai, India,
January 2004. We have already submitted a sketch proposal that has
been accepted.
The outline for the event, as presently structured, merely represents
the ideas that have been discussed between a very few number of
us, and we would very much like to have input and ideas from the
rest of you around the world. Co-sponsorship of this event is highly
welcome.
For more information, see: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/social/WSF.pdf.
If you or your organization would like to participate in this grassroots
event, please refer to the contact information listed in the link
above.
Another world- free from the threat of nuclear weapons- is possible.
********************************
September 22, 2003
In this News Advisory for September 22, 2003,
1) A New Look: Announcement of a new Reaching Critical Will website
2) Secretary-General Kofi Annan releases 2003 Report
Reaching Critical Will works to provide you with all of the information
regarding international disarmament news in the best way possible.
If you would prefer to receive these emails in plain text (without
the
bullet points and rich text), please notify me and I can send you
a simpler version.
Also, if you received this email as a forward and would like to
subscribe
to one or all of Reaching Critical Will’s email lists, please
visit:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/action/listindex.html
for a complete
description and instructions on how to subscribe.
In peace,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
Reaching Critical Will
1) A New Look for Reaching Critical Will
All summer long, the Reaching Critical Will team, with the invaluable
help of
Ms. Le Chen, WILPF-UNO’s brilliant web intern, has designed
a new look
and layout to the RCW site: www.reachingcriticalwill.org.
Our new design makes this vast resource exceedingly more navigable.
Roll your
mouse over the buttons on the left hand side to find:
The Legal Aspects of Disarmament: advocating
a rule of law
- Background information on major international disarmament treaties
- Resources for NGOs participating in disarmament fora
- Texts of major disarmament treaties
- Statements by countries at international disarmament fora
- and more
The Political Aspects of Disarmament: disarmament
can only be achieved
through diplomatic means
- Background information on the political bodies that make decisions
on disarmament
- Resources for NGOs seeking to influence these political decision
making bodies
- Statements by countries in these bodies
- Archived email advisories reporting on the latest developments
- and more
The Social Aspects of Disarmament: why the
people of the world want nuclear
disarmament- and what they are doing about it
- Gender and Disarmament resources: books, papers, articles, official
documents
- Disarmament Education Kit
- Information on Health and Environmental Consequences of the
Nuclear Age
- Indigenous Perspectives on the Nuclear Industry
- Tools for activists
- and more
The Technical Aspects of Disarmament: Demystifying
Nuclear Science
Fact Sheets on the Nuclear Cycle
- A-Z Nuclear Primer
- The Corporate Aspects of Disarmament: Exposing the corporate
influence on the
perpetuation of the nuclear industry
- The Dirty Dozen Project: The Baker's Dozen of the World's Dirtiest
Arms Manufacturers
- The Mil-Corp Connexion
- The Resources and Action sections contain tools to maximize
your own
disarmament efforts.
In addition to the new design, organization, easy-to-fill out forms
for subscribing,
accreditation for conferences, and donations, it also features a
broad search function.
The Reaching Critical Will site remains one of the most comprehensive
repositories
of disarmament information available. The old resources upon which
you have
come to depend are still there, too, just with different links.
For instance:
We welcome your comments, questions, compliments, or concerns
regarding
the new design. Please fill out our new questionnaire available
at:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/about/feedback.html.
We look forward to hearing from you.
2) Secretary-General’s 2003 report
Secretary-General Kofi Annan released his report On the Work of
the
Organization for 2003.
The first chapter, dedicated to Achieving Peace and Security, looks
at
the work of the United Nations on issues ranging from Iraq,
conflict prevention and peacemaking,
peacekeeping and peace-building, electoral assistance, terrorism,
sanctions, and disarmament.
On disarmament, the report states that “the body of multilateral
disarmament
norms has been slowly eroded as a result of weakened international
commitment”.
The report notes with concern at the “standstill” of
negotiations on other disarmament issues.
The Conference on Disarmament, for instance, has adjourned once
again
without progress on substantive work.
The report stresses the heightened concern of nuclear, biological,
or chemical
weapons and the increasing likelihood of their use, either by State
or non-State
actors. Questions of definition and scope of nuclear terrorism "stand
in the way
of adoption of a comprehensive convention" on the issue.
Although Mr. Annan “welcomed” the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty
between the U.S. and Russia (a.k.a. the Moscow Treaty), he urged
“further
steps to make reductions in strategic nuclear weapons irreversible,
transparent,
and verifiable.” He also called for further efforts to ensure
that the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty enters into force.
Please contact RCW
if you would like an electronic copy of the Secretary-General's
report.
********************************
September 15, 2003
In this Advisory:
1) WILPF Report on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Entry-Into-Force
Conference, by WILPF UNO Director Susi Snyder
2) General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International
Security Update
1. WILPF Report on the CTBT Entry-Into-Force (EIF) Conference,
September 3-5, Vienna
The big question on everyone’s mind seems to be “Was
the U.S. there?” If you looked at their nameplate, no, they
were not there. However, early inside information was that the U.S.
did send a “junior officer” to the third Article XIV
Conference on Facilitating the Entry-Into-Force of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). They made no statement, and were, in fact,
quiet as a church mouse as they listened to State after State remark
on how upset they were at the U.S., both for its Nuclear Posture
Review and for its high-level discussions on new additions to their
nuclear arsenal.
Perhaps it was Malaysia who said it most clearly when they spoke
on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on 3 September. H.E. Dato’
Hussein Haniff, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the CTBTO
said, “We express our serious concern about the Nuclear Posture
Review as advocated by the United States which considers, among
others, the development of new types of nuclear weapons through
resumption of nuclear testing. It is our view that the development
of new types of nuclear weapons is in contravention with the assurances
provided by the five nuclear-weapon States at the time of the conclusion
of the negotiations of the CTBT, and within the letter and spirit
of the Treaty.”The majority of the States who spoke at this
conference linked the CTBT to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), and to the 13 practical steps for disarmament, unanimously
agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. While not all States
who were present are party to the NPT (e.g. Israel & Pakistan),
the most are and overwhelmingly repeat their desire for a world
without nuclear weapons.
Much praise was heaped on Austria for hosting the conference as
well as providing political and financial support for states to
help them attend.
NGO Activity
On the opening day of the conference, VERTIC hosted a panel of
NGO representatives speaking on technical and political issues.
The panel was hosted by Trevor Findlay of VERTIC and featured Raymond
Willemann of the International Seismological Centre who spoke about
the consideration of alternate seismic data collection, Robert Gough
of the CTBTO who spoke about the recent field test of an On-Site
Inspection, and Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute who spoke
on Provisional Application of the CTBT.
On the final day of the conference, the NGOs were allotted ten
minutes to present an oral statement to the States Parties. The
statement drafted collectively by a dozen NGOs from around the
world, and signed by nearly 100 other organizations, was delivered
by Dr. Klaus Renholder from International Physicians for the Prevention
of Nuclear War, Vienna.
NGOs also organized a press conference on September 4 at the Vienna
Centre. Click
here for WILPF's statement to the press.
Outcome
Negotiations on the Final
Document (CTBT – Art.XIV/2003/CRP.1/Rev.1) kept the Committee
of the Whole in closed session until late in the evening on Thursday
4, September. Inside sources indicate that Israel was the stick
in the mud who would not, could not, should not agree to the draft
language which had been proposed. On the final day of the conference,
States Parties commended South Africa for its work in helping States
reach an amicable solution and come to consensus. The Final Document,
however, was weaker than many had hoped.
Friday’s statements mirrored the dissatisfaction with the
weakness of the Final Document. South Africa’s statement noted
“these Conferences are convened at the request of the majority
of States that have already deposited their instruments of ratifications
in respect of the Treaty, while States Signatories are invited to
attend as observers. The progress made at these Conferences should
not be subject to – or depend on – those States that
have not ratified the CTBT. In this regard my delegation remains
concerned that the Final Declarations of previous Conferences –
and indeed also of this present Conference – have not adequately
addressed the failure of the CTBT to enter into force.”
Although the recommendations listed in the Final Document were
not exceptionally strong, they did include a number of matters to
be considered, including establishing a trust fund- voluntarily
financed to support a Treaty outreach program- and appointing a
Special Representative to assist in the promotion of the entry into
force of the Treaty. Some of the more concrete recommendations included
the continuation of the Provisional Technical Secretariat to provide
States with legal assistance for ratification, and further cooperation
with NGOs and other elements of civil society to promote the EIF.
State Secretary of Sweden, Mr. Hans Dahlgren, bluntly summarized
the importance of this conference in his opening statement: “Additional
nuclear arms will not provide any additional security in the twenty-first
century. Nuclear weapons should be demolished and destroyed, wherever
they are. And the multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation
regime should be strengthened, not put at risk. That’s why
it is so vitally important that the Test Ban Treaty enters into
force, and that it does so now.”
-Susi Snyder, WILPF UN Office Director
Susi also delivered a
statement on behalf of WILPF at a press conference on September
4.
Click
here to read the WILPF statement text circulated at the conference.
For more information on the CTBT and the EIF Conferences, see:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/ctbt/ctbtindex.html.
2. First Committee News
The General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International
Security convenes October 6.
The Provisional Agenda can be downloaded by clicking
here and scrolling down.
Topics on the agenda include:
- Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
- the New Agenda Coalition
- Verification
- Negative Security Assurances
- Nuclear Testing
- Radiological Materials
- Nuclear Reductions
- Reports from various political bodies (including UNIDIR, the
Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission)
- Missiles
- Conventional Arms
- Biological Weapons
- Chemical Weapons
- Transparency in armaments
- General and Complete disarmament and
Disarmament and Development.
Stay updated on these issues and more by subscribing to Reaching
Critical Will's The First Committee Monitor, a weekly newsletter
published throughout the duration of the First Committee. The Monitor
is a collaborative effort between Reaching Critical Will, the Lawyers’
Committee on Nuclear Policy, Amnesty International, the Quakers
UN Office, and other NGOs. It will be available on the RCW website
in PDF and HTML. We also distribute it through a special email listserve,
in plain text, PDF, or HTML. If you would like to receive The Monitor
each week, send a message to 1comsubscribe@reachingcriticalwill.org,
indicating which format you would like to receive.
Reaching Critical Will now hosts a Calendar of Events throughout
the proceedings of the First Committee, available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/03cal.html.
If your organization or mission is hosting an event, please email
us to have your event posted on the calendar. Please include the
title of the event, date, time and location, as well as the contact
information for your organization.
September 2, 2003
There are three items in this September 2
News Advisory:
1) The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Conference on Facilitating
the Entry-Into-Force begins. Sign your organization on to the NGO
statement today!
2) Email list news
3) Countries on the IAEA agenda
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Organization will be hosting a Conference on Facilitating the Entry-Into-Force
of the CTBT this week, from September 3-5, in Vienna.
Over the past fifty years, NGOs and wise members of the diplomatic
community have worked tirelessly for the establishment of a nuclear
test ban. In 1996, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva finally
negotiated a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Seven
years later, NGO efforts must concentrate on seeing the Treaty enter-into-force
(EIF).
An international group of NGOs have drafted
a collective statement to be delivered to the States Parties during
the morning session on September 5. We urge all NGOs to sign-on
to this statement available here: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/ctbt/NGOstatement2003.htm.
Please note that due to time constraints, the statement will be
shortened to a reading time of 10 minutes. The text of the statement
will be delivered to the Secretariat and the States Parties in its
entirety.
The EIF of the Treaty relies solely upon the signature and ratification
of the 44 “Annex II” countries with nuclear energy capabilities.
At the time of this EIF Conference, 12 of those 44 countries have
yet to ratify. (See list below). One of them, the United States
of America, is even boycotting the conference, as they did at the
last EIF Conference in 2001- the only signator to do so.
If your country is one of the 12 hold-out states, it is important
that you write to them and urge them to ratify. Make an appointment
to speak with a representative at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(or equivalent) and encourage the Foreign Minister to attend the
conference and publicly urge the CTBT hold out states to promptly
ratify the Treaty.
To contact your government's mission, see
RCW's Governmental
Database.
Stay updated on what your government does
or does not say on our CTBT
page. In addition, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization
will be posting all official documents on
their site in real time.
If you and your organization would like to sign on to this statement,
please send all relevant information to Professor
Thomas Schoenfeld of the Vienna NGO Committee on Disarmament
and International Security.
For more information on the CTBT, visit:
The Acronym
Institute
The Arms Control
Association
Coalition
to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
International Physicians for the Prevention
of Nuclear War
Physicians
for Social Responsibility
Reaching
Critical Will
Verification,
Research and Training Information Centre
CTBT Annex II States whose ratification is needed for entry-into-force
*indicates non-signator status
China
Colombia
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea*
Democratic Republic of Congo
Egypt
India*
Indonesia
Iran
Israel
Pakistan*
United States
Vietnam
2) Email List News
The Reaching Critical Will website now includes
brief descriptions on various web-based information services provided
by non-governmental organizations around the world. These groups
manage news wires, information archives, e-discussion fora and other
services for those interested in disarmament and non-proliferation,
nuclear weapons, arms trades, missiles, foreign policy, and regional
issues. The descriptions also include instructions on how to subscribe
to these invaluable services. See: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/lists/listindex.html.
As part of our efforts to enhance our own email news services, Reaching
Critical Will has finally finished upgrading our email program,
including a new, more easily manageable email address book. If you
are still receiving multiple News Advisories, please inform us and
the problem will be immediately corrected.
Furthermore, if you or your colleagues would
like to renew or update a subscription to any of the other RCW managed
email lists- including the CD or First Committee lists- send an
email to subscribe@reachingcriticalwill.org,
with the list name in the subject heading and your name and full
email address in the body of the message. Please indicate if you
would prefer HTML or Plain Text messages.
To read brief descriptions of the various
lists managed or used by RCW, visit: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/lists/listindex.html,
which also includes links to archived news advisories as well.
If we can improve our email services in any way, please submit comments
and questions to suggestions@reachingcriticalwill.org.
3) Countries on the IAEA agenda
Iran and Israel are items on the agenda at the next General Committee
meeting of the IAEA, to be held September 15-19 in Vienna.
This is the first time that the international atomic watchdog agency
will be discussing Israel’s nuclear arsenal, estimated by
US Intelligence Agencies to be around 75-150 weapons. Other groups
believe that Israel has close to 400. (For a brief history on the
Israeli nuclear program, see The
Federation of American Scientists fact sheet)
Iran, on the contrary, has been a top priority
at the IAEA since the surprise discovery of two advanced facilities
in Iran last year. Since Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei’s
trip to Iran in June, the IAEA has sent several teams to investigate
claims by the United States that Iran’s nuclear facilities
are a cover-up for a clandestine nuclear weapons program. On Tuesday,
August 26, IAEA inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium
around the Natanz plant. The United States viewed the finding as
proof of the secret weapons program; Iran insists that the uranium
traces were there at the time of purchase.
Read
the AP article
Iran and Israel aren’t the only countries
the IAEA has been discussing. Last week in a German newspaper, Mr.
ElBaradei accused the United States of using “double standards”
in its nuclear non-proliferation policy. "The U.S. government
demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile,
it is arming itself," said Mr. ElBaradei.
Read
the full Reuters article on Mr. ElBaradei’s statements on
the U.S.
Read
the Provisional Agenda for the GC meeting
Best wishes,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
July 25, 2003 (2)
Dear Reaching Critical Will friends and advisors,
Normally, RCW sends out two email advisories per month and you
should have received the second July advisory this morning.
However, two alarming articles just crossed my desk, and I believe
that they merit as much dissemination as possible.
On July 3, Nucleonics Week reported that the Israeli Ministry of
Foreign Affairs threatened to attack the Natanz nuclear facility
if Iran completes its gas centrifuge facilities and begins enriching
uranium there. Just yesterday, a representative of Iran's Supreme
National Security Council announced that if their nuclear facilities
are attacked, Iran will become the second State Party to withdraw
from the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
The first article, featured in Nucleonics Week was published on
July 3. The second, a Reuters article, came out just yesterday,
July 24.
Best,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
Reaching Critical Will
Officials Say Israel Will Destroy Natanz Plant if Iran
Operates It
Mark Hibbs, Bonn
Nucleonics Week, July 3, 2003, pg. 12
Senior officials representing Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
last month privately confided to selected foreign government counterparts
that, if the Islamic Republic of Iran completes gas centrifuge facilities
at Natanz and begins enriching uranium there, Israel will embark
on a military operation to destroy it, according to highly reliable
European government sources.
The government of Israel declined to respond to formal requests
from Nucleonics Week to discuss its response to confirmation by
the IAEA of the Natanz facility and Iran's long-undeclared experimental
uranium processing program.
On June 13, the IAEA reported to the IAEA board of governors that
Iran is constructing two enrichment facilities at Natanz. One is
described by the IAEA as a pilot enrichment plant "nearing
completion of construction," and the second, a "large
commercial-scale fuel enrichment plant also under construction."
The IAEA also confirmed that Iran throughout the 1990s had carried
out a nuclear fuel cycle development program outside of IAEA safeguards.
Before and during the board meeting, IAEA Director General Mohammed
ElBaradei resisted pressure from the US to cite Iran for non-compliance
with Infcirc-214, its safeguards agreement, in connection with its
failure to report to the IAEA the import, movements, and processing
of UF4, UF6, and UO2. Since the board meeting, US and UK officials
have encouraged Iran to abide by Infcirc-214 and sign the Additional
Protocol for safeguards under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT), which would provide more transparency about Iran's nuclear
program.
IAEA officials said that since early this year, Iran has been cooperating
with the IAEA in resolving outstanding issues and explaining violations
of its reporting requirements under Infcirc-214. Because of that,
he said, the IAEA would not pursue a confrontational approach to
resolve discrepancies and questions about Iran's program.
At the same time, some Western government officials involved in
preparing the board meeting said in May that speculation had arisen
whether Israel, which is not a member of the NPT and which in 1981
destroyed Iraq's French-supplied Osirak research reactor, would
once again attack a critical nuclear installation in a hostile neighboring
state.
Thus far, Israel has said nothing about its intentions in responding
to confirmation that Iran intends to enrich uranium at Natanz. The
Israel Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), well-placed sources said,
has instructed all personnel to say nothing in public about the
Iranian enrichment plant.
In May, Ephraim Asculai, a former AEC official, said in an article
written for the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv
that "nuclear verification is clearly failing in Rian, when
(the IAEA) let Iran proceed with its ambitious program. In any case,
it would be unable to deter or stop its development of nuclear weapons.
The verification mechanisms will fail by not being able to prove
anything, since intentions, particularly when based on legal actions,
are unverifiable."
Last month, Nucleonics Week requested comment on the Natanz plant
from both the Israel Ministry of Defense and the Israel Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. The query to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
was routed to the Office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Israeli
government did not respond to either request.
In statements intended to be confidential, high-level Israeli officials
stated unflinchingly that Israel will destroy Iran's uranium enrichment
infrastructure at Natanz if the plants are completed and begin operating.
Israeli officials "made very clear that in that case Israel
will destroy them," one official said.
In 1981, Israeli jet fighters bombed the Osirak reactor, then nearing
completion at Iraq's Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, north of
Baghdad. That step was taken, according to former Israeli intelligence
officials, after Israeli agents in France assassinated an Iraqi
scientist involved in the project and tried to sabotage delivery
of equipment French industry had manufactured for the reactor. While
Iraq had agreed to declare the reactor under IAEA safeguards, evidence
which surfaced when IAEA began investigating Iraq's secret nuclear
program beginning in 1991 documented that Iraq had intended the
Osirak reactor to produce weapons-grade plutonium.
The Iranian enrichment facilities were declared to the IAEA in
February when ElBaradei and two senior IAEA safeguards officials
saw them for the first time. But they had been secret until disclosed
by an Iranian opposition group in August 2002. During the mid-1990s,
Iranian officials told Nucleonics Week that, on economic grounds,
Iran had no interest in developing an independent nuclear fuel cycle
(NW, 22 Feb.'96, 4). Six years later, the IAEA found advanced supercritical
centrifuges installed at Natanz.
Until revealed by the opposition group, Iran had never informed
the IAEA of its activities related to gas centrifuge uranium enrichment.
As early as 1991, however, the IAEA this spring confirmed, Iran
imported UO2, UF4, and UF6 and processed these without having informed
the IAEA, in violation of Infcirc-214.
The IAEA is continuing to discuss details of Iran's nuclear activities
with the Iranian government and is to report to the board again
on the subject in September. In the meantime, the IAEA has requested
that Iran not introduce any nuclear material into the Natanz centrifuges.
Israel's 1981 decision to destroy the Iraqi reactor was made by
then-prime minister Menachem Begin. Diplomatic sources in the Middle
East said that the country's current leader, Ariel Sharon, would
not hesitate to destroy the Natanz plants if he-- as did Begin in
1981-- concluded that step was necessary to prevent an enemy of
Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons material. Both Begin and Sharon
have led Israel's hard-line Likud bloc.
European officials also said last week that, if Iran intends to
begin enriching uranium in 2004 or 2005, the US administration under
George W. Bush would be inclined to support a unilateral attack
by Israel. Some of these officials also suggested that such a development
might be received by the IAEA Secretariat with mixed feelings including
some relief. They pointed out that Israel is outside the NPT, and
that destruction of the enrichment infrastructure would spare the
IAEA the potential political liability of monitoring fissile material
production in a country which, should it decide its security was
threatened or that doing so was otherwise opportune, might, like
North Korea did earlier this year, leave the NPT. That would leave
Iran, unfettered, with an infrastructure for producing significant
quantities of weapons-grade material.
Alternately, however, some observers, including Western officials
previously involved in IAEA inspections in Iraq, voiced concern
that an Israeli attack on Natanz might not succeed, since the Iranian
plants are in a bunkered facility and partially underground. While
Israel's attack on the Osirak reactor eliminated a large production-type
reactor, Iran's centrifuges are small and both the industrial template
and know-how for building them are likely to be highly protected
against attack. They also warned that, as in the case of Iraq in
1981, an Israeli attack on Natanz now would play into the hands
of Iranian leaders who favor speedy clandestine development of nuclear
weapons.
The Natanz enrichment site is about 1,700 kilometers east of Israeli
territory, within striking range of guided surface-to-surface missiles
or Israeli aircraft. The flight route to the target would cross
the middle of Allied-occupied Iraq.
Officials said that, while in 2002 and 2003 the Bush administration
was preoccupied with Iraq's alleged security threat, Israel pressed
the US instead to address the weapons threats posed by Iran. Were
the US to heed that advice and itself launch an attack against the
Iranian facilities, one Western government official said, US Defense
Secretary Donald "Rumsfeld could probably do it with a handful
of cruise missiles."
European officials last month however discouraged such speculation.
"It's too early to think about this option," one German
diplomat said. URL: http://www.platts.com
Iran will pull out of NPT if attacked- official.
July 24, 2003
TEHRAN, July 24 (Reuters)- A member of Iran's top security body
said Tehran would pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) if any of its nuclear facilities came under military attack,
a newspaper reported on Thursday.
"Because we have obtained the essential (nuclear) technology,
if they attack our facilities, we will withdraw from the NPT,"
the afternoon Kayhan daily quoted Ali Larijani, member of Iran's
Supreme National Security Council, as saying.
"If that case arose, our activities would go underground,"
Larijani, who is also head of Iran's state broadcaster IRIB- a position
which is appointed directly by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-
said in a speech to university lecturers.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is aimed solely at generating
electricity.
But US officials have said they believe Iran is covertly trying
to develop atomic weapons. Some hardline US think-tanks have said
Washington may have to consider military strikes against some of
Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear
power.
US and British officials have repeatedly said military action against
Iran, which lies between Iraq and Afghanistan, is not being contemplated
despite concerns about its nuclear ambitions.
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said earlier
this week Iran had no intention of pulling out of the NPT despite
calls from some hardline conservatives in the Islamic Republic to
do so.
Iran is under mounting pressure to agree to tighter UN inspections
of its nuclear facilities. Iran has said it may agree to the more
intrusive, no-notice checks if it is given access to Western technology
to advance its nuclear energy programme.
July 25, 2003 (1)
News Advisory
Dear Reaching Critical Will friends and advisors,
With those of us in the northern hemisphere sweltering in the summer's
heat, the RCW team at WILPF is sending out this last news advisory
before many of you run off for your summer holiday.
In this Advisory:
I) Proliferation Security Initiative: Securing Proliferation
II) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Article XIV Conference NGO information
III) Commemorating Hiroshima and Nagasaki, August 2003
In addition, many of you were probably surprised, confused, or
amused when you all received an email from "mrk@clarku.edu,"
which included a dinner invitation addressed to me. That email,
obviously from a personal friend, contained a weird, isolated virus
that somehow forwarded this email to everybody on the Reaching Critical
Will list. I am sure that none of your computers were harmed by
this little email, but just in case, please run your virus scanners
thoroughly as soon as possible. And please accept both my, and "mrk's"
humble apologies.
Best wishes,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
I) Proliferation Security Initiative: Securing Proliferation
Disarmament circles have been abuzz recently with news of the Proliferation
Security Initiative (PSI), a mechanism designed to formalize arrangements
between eleven countries to interdict ships in air, on land, and
on the high seas that are suspected of carrying weapons of mass
destruction, their delivery vehicles, and other weapons materials.
Since May, when Bush first announced the initiative in Krakow, Poland,
the eleven countries have met twice: on June 12 in Madrid, Spain,
and most recently in Brisbane, Australia, on July 9-10. According
to U.S. Under-Secretary of State John Bolton, the project is evolving
³at light speed,² and naval exercises of the initiative
are scheduled for as early as September of this year. To read the
full statement of the Chairman of the meeting, click here: http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0307/doc04.htm
The initiative was motivated when, in December of last year, Spain
interdicted a flagless ship on the high seas at the behest of the
United States, and discovered North Korean Scud missiles bound for
Yemen. The ship, however, was quickly released, as the interdicting
parties lacked any authority to seize or detain it.
Under the initiative, the eleven countries- including the U.S.,
the U.K., Spain, Japan, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
France and Germany- intend to detain and search all vessels thought
to be carrying WMD or related materials. There are also plans to
deny overflight rights to "suspicious aircraft" and to
prohibit them from takeoff if they stop to refuel in the territory
of a member country.
There are also efforts to institutionalize the practice of ³escorting
down² aircrafts in question in order to be searched, although
this is regarded by some participants with apprehension.
Despite the reports from the Brisbane meeting that the group is
unified, cracks within the alliance are already appearing. South
Korea and Japan are reportedly nervous that PSI is overwhelmingly
focused on North Korea, an already volatile situation that threatens
their region with a nuclear exchange. Many of the Europeans are
suspected to eventually push PSI toward UN legitimacy, a direction
that the U.S. views most unfavorably. Still others remain dubious
of the project¹s credibility so long as China and Russia remain
outside of it. So far, neither country has demonstrated interest.
Some NGOs have already begun their campaigns to prevent the implementation
of PSI. In early July, the Australian group Just Peace, aware that
their government was about to host the second meeting on the venture,
publicly protested, calling the project ³vigilante attacks,²
warning that, Australia will be participating in an "international
kangaroo court justice."
There are a few laws whose reprinting here seems pertinent. Article
9 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas states that, ³Ships
owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial
service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the
jurisdiction of any StateŠ² Article 22 explicitly instructs
that any ship ³which encounters a foreign merchant ship on
the high seas is not justified in boarding her unless there is reasonable
ground for suspecting: (a) that the ship is engaged in piracy; or
(b) that the ship is engaged in the slave tradeŠ²
The inter-state trade of missiles is thus legal, no matter how
morally repugnant all weapons of warfare may be. To the United States,
the incident over the North Korean missile deal to Yemen prompts
a response which has manifested as the Proliferation Security Initiative,
a practice that will inevitably promote more hostility among nations,
more suspicion, and decrease the world¹s reliability on the
United Nations, so long as that body continues to ignore this usurpation
of power. A more effective response to the December incident would
be to strengthen truly multilateral controls over the production,
distribution, and deployment of missiles and other delivery systems,
and place them under UN control and oversight. So long as states
are free to produce missiles at whim, efforts at controlling their
proliferation remain futile. Furthermore, militarized efforts at
combating another state¹s militarization will only escalate
any precarious peace between the countries. What happens if a plane,
not recognizing the self-endowed authority of the PSI, does not
so easily submit to being ³escorted down,² as envisioned
in the plan? The Initiative could then be the causus belli that
propels a global war.
Currently, the best legal framework for missiles is the insufficient
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR); a non-binding, voluntary
group that would, at best, only control the spread of missiles and
missile technology, rather than work to halt production, prohibit
transfer, or criminalize their use and threat of use. For more information
on proposed missile legal regimes, see: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/missiles/missilesindex.html.
The U.S. administration recognized that it would be easier to manipulate
³inventive national law² (see CNS report, link below)
rather than seeking to alter existing international law. It should
not go unnoticed that the eleven participatory states- U.S., U.K.,
Spain, Japan, France, Germany, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, Poland
and Portugal- are eleven of the most wealthiest countries on the
planet. Equitable, global norms are once again underwritten by a
rule of law based on the interests of the powerful and wealthy.
For more information on PSI, see:
1) Weiner, Rebecca, ³Proliferation Security Initiative to
Stem Flow of WMD Matériel,² July 16, 2003: http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030716.htm#fn1
2) The Chairman¹s Statement at the Brisbane meeting, http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0307/doc04.htm
3) Agence-France Presse, July 10, 2003
4) Testimony of John R. Bolton to the Committee on International
Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, June 4, 2003: www.house.gov/international_relations/108.
For relevant international law see:
1) Convention on the High Seas, April 28, 1958. http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/hseafra.htm
2) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety
of Maritime Navigation, March 10, 1988. http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=259&doc_id=686
II) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Article XIV Conference NGO information
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) will be
holding a conference on the Treaty¹s Entry-Into-Force in Vienna,
September 3-5, 2003. Any non-governmental organization that wishes
to attend the Conference must fill out the appropriate application
form, which is available at: www.ctbto.org. (Click on Conference
on Facilitating the Entry Into Force, and then click on Information
for NGOs.) You must send this application, along with a letter stating
the names of your NGO representatives in attendance, to Mr. Christian
Evertz at Christian.Evertz@ctbto.org.
On Friday, September 5, the NGOs are allowed to present a collective
statement to the States Parties. There is already a working listserve
through which the NGOs are drafting, circulating, and editing this
statement, in hopes of obtaining as many signatories as possible.
If you would like to participate in drafting this statement, notify
me and I will send you the information on how to subscribe to this
listserve.
The WILPF UN office¹s new Co-Director, Susi Snyder, will be
attending the conference, and will be collecting all statements
circulated to post on our website. All documents from this conference,
as well as the conference in 2001, are available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/ctbt/ctbtindex.html.
All NGOs can direct their questions to of the three NGO contact
persons:
Rhianna Tyson, WILPF: rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org
Aaron Tovish, NGO Committee on Disarmament, Geneva: aaron.tovish@bluewin.ch
Thomas Schoenfeld, NGO Committee on Peace, Vienna: Thomas.Schoenfeld@univie.ac.at
3) Commemorating Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Never Again
On August 6 and August 9, cities all over the world will hold events
to commemorate the 58th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The anniversaries are opportunities for
us to mourn, reflect, and to re-dedicate ourselves to the abolition
of nuclear weapons, to ensure that the atrocities befallen on those
fated cities will never again be repeated.
New Yorkers will mourn with their Japanese sisters and brothers
at a vigil in Central Park, organized by the Peace Boat and the
Hague Appeal for Peace.
Oklahomans will protest the Pentagon in Omaha, where the Strategic
Command will meet to discuss the development and uses for the new
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and other bunker busters.
Californians will unite in their opposition against nuclear weaponry,
by linking hands around the Livermore Laboratory.
Students will march to Oak Ridge Tennessee to peacefully protest
the Y-12 National Security Complex.
The World Conference Against A&H Bombs will hold its annual
meeting to strategize on the abolition of these weapons.
In Scotland, Trident Ploughshares is hosting a week-long Disarmament
Camp, to train concerned citizens in effective disarmament activism.
Others will bicycle from Czech Republic through Germany and Paris,
flying to North America to bike from Montreal, Ottawa, Washington,
and then to New York, before flying again to Japan to bike from
Tokyo to Hiroshima, in a global demonstration of solidarity and
commitment to nuclear disarmament.
For more information on these events and others see: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmcal03.html.
For events across the United States, see: www.ananuclear.org/HiroshimaDays2003.html.
May 27, 2003
The 2003 NPT PrepCom: One Week Later
Dear Reaching Critical Will friends and advisors,
The 2003 Preparatory Committee nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
has come and gone. The Reaching Critical Will website features all
of the available documents to have emerged from the conference,
including:
- the
Chairman’s Factual Summary
- official
statements
- working
papers
- NGO
presentations
- and the daily NGO newsletter, the News
in Review.
The final edition of the News in Review is attached to this email
as a PDF document.
The front page article, “This is What Reporting Looks Like:
Assessing the Chairman’s Factual Summary,” is featured
below.
All information related to the NPT, including text of the treaty,
the 2000 Review Conference Final Document (the 13 Steps) , and other
documents from previous PrepComs and RevCons can be found at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/nptindex.html
The 2003 edition of the Shadow Report has also been uploaded to
the RCW site, which includes a new
chapter on Nuclear Weapons States’ compliance with the 13 Steps.
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/shadowreport/NWScompliance.pdf
Also included below is Under-Secretary for Disarmament Jayantha
Dhanapala’s Farewell Speech, delivered at a reception organized
by the Hague Appeal for Peace, May 13, 2003.
Best wishes,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
Reaching Critical Will
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
1) “This Is What Reporting Looks Like: Assessing the Chairman’s
Factual Summary.”
The 2003 Preparatory Committee for the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty has convened and dispersed, leaving behind a stack of predictable
statements, a dozen or so working papers on proposed courses of
action to strengthen the non-proliferation regime, and, of course,
a “Factual Summary” written by the Hungarian delegation
which chaired the meeting. (As always, all available documents can
be downloaded at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/nptindex.html.)
How factual was the Factual Summary? Well, the majority of States
Parties seem to be satisfied with it at least. In order to avoid
hefty criticism upon delivery of the Summary, Chairman Mólnár
consulted with what has been referred to as “key delegations”
in the preparation of the Summary. The result was a rather weak,
diluted report on the proceedings of the two weeks. The 19 States
Parties that publicly responded to the Summary (China, the United
States, Russia, Greece on behalf of the European Union, France,
the United Kingdom, New Zealand on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition,
Ireland, Syria, Egypt, Germany, Brazil, Malaysia, Japan, Australia,
Iran, Cuba, South Korea, and Uzbekistan) had relatively few qualms
with the 10 page text, preferring stronger wording here or there,
expressing disappointment with insufficient attention to their issue
of choice, or, in the case of Ambassador de la Fortelle, calling
for more Francophonic participation. For a complete summary of the
responses, see Rebecca Johnson’s article at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/npt/index.htm
(Excerpts are also reprinted here on page 2).
A fair, balanced, accurate, and, most importantly, useful Chairman’s
Factual Summary should reflect the diversity of opinion, hopes,
efforts, and politics that were expressed and exercised at the PrepCom.
The Summary should be viewed as a transparency measure for the world,
an unbiased window into the opaque proceedings. It should look not
only at what issues were discussed, but it should also expose the
position taken by each country on the issues. What arguments were
brought up in the defense of a proposal? What arguments were given
against it, and by whom? People have a right to ask: what is my
country doing for non-proliferation and disarmament, and why?
Granted, the task of compiling a summary of deliberations between
nearly 200 states is an extremely daunting task, that only an uber-diplomat
could even dare to tackle. In full agreement with the 19 states
that responded, NGOs recognize what an enormous challenge the Summary
is, and we applaud Ambassador Mólnár for his efforts.
Nonetheless, the NGOs following the PrepCom in Geneva felt that
the text did not accurately reflect the arguments that had been
presented. A balanced and accurate reporting of the States Parties’
dialogue would enlighten readers to the politics behind each State
Party’s position on the issues. Paragraph 21, for instance,
reads that “Many States Parties recalled that regular reports
should be submitted by all States Parties…It was stressed that
such reporting would promote increased confidence in the overall
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime through transparency. It
was also expressed that such transparency provides valuable means
to address and respond to compliance concerns. States parties recognized
the value of reports and used them in substantive deliberation,
in line with their wish for enhanced interaction.” This summary
statement lacks any mention of the adamant position of some States
Parties against standardizing such a vehicle for transparency and
confidence-building.
The lengthy paragraph 29 on Negative Security Assurances (NSAs),
likewise, fails to reflect the position of states like the U.S.
and U.K. against codifying NSAs. The effect again is that a reader
is left ignorant of the obstacles facing such codification. As a
result of the Summary’s failure to incorporate the reservations
expressed against codifying this important confidence-building measure
(CBM), it seems as though agreement was reached, and that Non-Nuclear
Weapon States (NNWS) will have their NSA any day now.
Other paragraphs are misleading in other ways. Paragraph 2, for
instance, portrays a unanimous commitment to non-proliferation via
the 13 Steps that, quite frankly, is just not true. The paragraph
states that “States Parties stressed their commitment to the
effective implementation of the objectives of the Treaty, the decisions
and the resolution of the… Final Document of the 2000 Review
Conference…” The U.S., for one, is not committed to the
2000 Review Conference final document, as it repeatedly asserts.
Prior to the start of the PrepCom, many people were anticipating
the DPRK’s withdrawal to be a major issue discussed in Geneva.
Yet from reading the Summary, one would conclude that it was indeed
a minor, barely mentioned issue. The sole reference to the DRPK
lacks any mention of the U.S. and its reneged obligations (both
Article VI and Agreed Framework promises) in the reference to the
DPRK withdrawal. If States Parties were hoping to lure the DPRK
back to the NPT family, exonerating the U.S. by ignoring the role
that it played in the withdrawal was surely detrimental to the cause.
There was, however, one other legacy of the 2003 Preparatory Committee.
In addition to the statements, working papers, and Factual Summary,
the NGOs left behind a renewed commitment to better influence the
NPT process. Of course, the NGOs were predictably, audibly disappointed
with the lack of a unified outrage amongst NNWS toward for recent
U.S. proliferation. Where was the condemnation of the US’s
blatant vertical proliferation? After the joviality that accompanied
and followed Vice-Chair Salander’s musical close to the conference,
(this year it was a Frank Sinatra rendition) one NGO representative
stood helplessly near the entrance of the room, shouting, “When’s
the crying session start? Hello!? When do we collectively cry?”
No, we will not collectively weep over the lack of progress, substantial
commitments, or objectionable retreat from disarmament commitments.
We will simply harness the energy spawned amongst ourselves and
a few likeminded States Parties, and formulate it into an effective
strategy for next year, when a representative from the Non-Aligned
Movement will chair the proceedings, and consensus-based recommendations
will arise for the 2005 Review Conference. We will continue demonstrating
for the State Parties what transparency looks like through continued
advocacy for reporting and production of the NGO Shadow Report.
We will continue demonstrating for them what democracy looks like,
through a significantly increased NGO presence in New York, and
an increase of citizens’ weapons inspections around the world.
We will continue building bridges between the States Parties and
the people whom they purport to represent, by widely expanding our
disarmament education projects and initiatives. We will continue
educating governments and peoples about the horrors of nuclear weaponry
testing, and energy industries.
There’s no time for tears; we have a lot of work to do. And
distinguished delegates, we’ll see you in eleven months.
Rhianna Tyson
Reaching Critical Will
WILPF
2) Text of Mr. Dhanapala’s speech at the NGO Farewell Reception
Organized by the Hague Appeal for Peace,
Lawyers Committee for Nuclear Policy and
the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security
New York
13 May 2003
Dearest Cora, my friends in the NGO community, Excellencies, Ladies
and Gentlemen,
May I begin by saying how overwhelmed with emotion Maureen and I
are by this heart-warming gesture of the NGO community, led by the
redoubtable and remarkably dynamic Cora Weiss, whose Hague Appeal
for Peace remains a beacon in the peace and disarmament field. I
had originally planned to speak from the heart and without a script,
as befits an informal occasion like this. After some reflection,
however, I decided that there was a real danger that the heart may
take over completely. And so, in order that I may speak to you both
from my heart and my head - which on most occasions reach a consensus
with the intervention of the keeper of my conscience, my wife -
I have decided not to engage in the "unscripted reactivity"
that I have recently been witness to at the NPT Prepcom in Geneva
but rather to speak from a script. This will ensure that in an emotionally
charged occasion for me, I will still be able to share some thoughts
based on my experience of working in the United Nations.
It is entirely appropriate, and not without significance, that one
of my final statements in New York, in my present capacity, should
be made under the aegis of the Non-governmental organizations. For,
as I have often said, the NGOs have been the wind under my wings
- especially during the last five years when some may have wanted
to clip those wings! Like the United Nations, civil society transcends
the parochialism of narrow national interests. And like the Pope,
in Stalin's famous riposte, civil society has no armed divisions.
As a former resident of Geneva I recall the seductive advertisement
of a Swiss bank at the Geneva Airport, which read "Money talks,
but wealth whispers". In a realpolitik-soaked United Nations
power speaks but influence lingers. And so, long after the headlines
of wars and crises fade away and the short attention span of Governments
and the media move on to other issues, what the value-based NGOs
have said and done will linger in the consciences of us all.
Like the United Nations, the NGOs do not represent the national
interest of any one country or group of countries, however powerful,
rich, or indispensable they may consider themselves to be. They
represent the collective, non-sectarian global interests of the
peoples of the world, which is more, much more, than the sum total
of the national interests of the nation states of the world. That
cannot please the jingoists and the proponents of civilizational
supremacy. Civil society challenges the monopoly claim of governments
- especially the unelected and undemocratic ones - to be the sole
interpreters of the national interests of their people. NGOs support
the transcendental values of global society. They represent civil
society and express global public opinion, which both Secretary-General
Kofi Annan and the New York Times have described as the other super-power.
But, to continue to exert that invaluable influence, civil society
must not only keep governments and the United Nations honest and
faithful to their ideals and their mandates. It must also remain
honest to itself - uncorrupted by pressures of power politics, the
lure of being sub-contracted by powerful interest groups or being
seduced subtly by individual ego-trips. Let me use this platform
to urge once again for the NGOs in the disarmament field the same
rights and privileges that are extended, for example, to those in
the human rights field. This includes participation in debates and
full access to delegations and documents. The voice of NGOs must
be heard in all disarmament fora however inconvenient and awkward
it may be to some governments. As we have seen in Geneva at the
last NPT Prepcom, the NGOs have a wealth of ideas, proposals and
research findings to bring to the table. There should be no artificial
obstruction preventing this wealth from being more amply articulated.
Rules of Procedure are not set in concrete. They can be changed
- they must be changed - for us all to advance the cause of multilateral
disarmament.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I recall that when I assumed my functions
as Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament, I said, in one of my
first statements to the NGO community, that I sought neither to
build empires nor to engage in turf battles. I hope that now, at
the end of my tenure, I will be judged to have been honest in maintaining
that pledge. It has not been easy, however, to conduct the affairs
of the smallest department in the UN Secretariat in the face of
progress-resistant budgetary procedures, patronizing attitudes from
our big brothers and sisters and the blurred jurisdictional lines
of the bureaucracy. And yet, whatever has been achieved in these
last five years in the re-established DDA with which I was entrusted,
has been accomplished with the extraordinary teamwork of my staff
at Headquarters, in Geneva and in the field. I want here to recognize
publicly their sterling contributions and to express to those of
them who are present amongst the audience, my deep gratitude and
appreciation.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The sovereign equality of member states of the Unites Nations is
a cardinal principle enshrined in Article 2:1 of the Charter. It
is a democratic principle that sets us apart from the Bretton Woods
Institutions where he who pays the piper calls the tune. It is also
- sadly but indisputably - one of the more glorious myths of this
world body as we have seen demonstrated recently. I am, therefore,
especially grateful to Secretary-General Annan for having appointed
me - a national of a small developing country with little political
influence and less economic muscle, contributing 0.016% to the UN
Budget - to a position at the high table of the Senior Management
Group.
However, at the end of ten years with the United Nations - five
in Geneva as Director of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research
from 1987-92 and five more in New York as USG/DDA - I remain gravely
concerned that the gap between the advocacy of the concerns of the
vast majority of the Global South - from whence I came and whither
I will return - and the actual redressing of these concerns is growing.
We have only to view the actual record of the implementation of
the Millennium Development Goals; the obscene disparity between
the cost of one unilateral military action and the global resources
allocated to urgent human security needs; and the rapidity of radar
screen changes in the priorities of the poor, the sick, the homeless
and dispossessed to realize the under-achievement of this great
organization. The causes lie not merely in the aggressive pursuit
of national interest to the detriment of global welfare, or the
decision-making structure of the Security Council, the reform of
which has long been on the UN agenda. It is also evident in the
agenda setting in recent times and resource allocations to programmes.
Some say this is a political organization and that we must accept
this skewed playing field as a fact of life. I disagree. The largest
taxpayers and the poorest citizens in a democratic country are on
a level playing field in the polling booth.
The United Nations represents the aspirations of the poor and the
weak. There is no other safety net for them. We cannot preach good
governance to member states if we do not practise it in our own
organization. We can and must balance the norm-based idealism of
the United Nations with the interest-based realism of the rich and
powerful. The drafters of the United Nations Charter, I believe,
created a harmonious system of checks and balances in which no component
would have overwhelming power over the others, be it the Security
Council, the General Assembly or the Secretariat. We need to return
to the roots of the Charter in the post Iraq war period. It would
be the only way, the best way, of satisfying all the members of
the international community. To engage in Charter revision so as
to legitimize the self-righteous, neo-conservative view that might
is right is a roadmap to disaster. The Secretary-General's second
wave of reforms published last year rightly recognized the need
to improve the management of trust funds, which number over 200
today. That task has now begun. It must ensure that the priority
items of the UN agenda are funded first, rather than have donor-driven
priorities established, distorting the UN's agenda. I do not refer
to the Funds and Programmes, which must of course rely on voluntary
funds. It is significant that for the current biennium of the UN
Secretariat, of the total resources budgeted 39.7% comes from the
Regular Budget and as much as 60.3% from Trust Funds. For the forthcoming
2003-4 Biennium while 42% is budgeted expenditure from the Regular
Budget, 58% comes from extra-budgetary resources. As at June 2002,
out of a total of 15,633 staff in the UN Secretariat 7,469 (48%)
were paid from the Regular Budget and 8164 (52%) were financed from
extra budgetary resources. This trend can have ominous consequences.
Why is it that the Member States who balk at paying higher assessed
rates to the regular budget or demand lowering of their assessed
rates, are so keen to maintain Trust Funds pursuing their priority
agenda items in a form of "a la carte multilateralism"?
The present situation opens the way for competition among Department
Heads for extra-budgetary funds and for compromises to be reached
aggravating democracy-deficient and opaque practices. Accountability
standards must be the same for both Regular Budget and Extra-budgetary
resources. I am confident that the internal review going on within
the UN will result in beneficial reforms and effective controls.
They should.
Let me now turn more directly to the role of the UN in Disarmament.
This role covers a gamut of issues - from weapons of mass destruction
through missiles and small arms to confidence building measures
like transparency. The relentless advocacy, consistent implementation
and objective monitoring of the norms that exist, and assistance
in future norm-building, must encompass this entire range.
There are some, I know, who would like DDA to be re-directed into
the cul-de-sac of small arms and light weapons alone. This I have
resisted. The disarmament component of the Millennium Assembly Report
of the Secretary-General may have been confined to small arms proliferation
had not DDA made its own contribution to the Report. It was a contribution
that the Secretary-General unhesitatingly accepted and it enlarged
the scope of the disarmament agenda to rightly include weapons of
mass destruction, especially nuclear disarmament, missile defence
issues and landmines. I must therefore warn against continuing efforts,
through cheque book diplomacy, to distract attention from the priorities
of multilateral disarmament, set by that unique consensus reached
at the First Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly
in 1978 - the 25th anniversary of which we will observe in a few
days. There must be no empires established only for the small arms
and light weapons proliferation problem, however well funded they
may be by extra-budgetary resources, while the possession and proliferation
of WMD, missiles, sophisticated conventional weapons, and new types
of weapons proceed apace, consuming a trillion dollars a year.
As I leave the UN, witnessing the debris in the aftermath of the
war in Iraq and the disarray of the global security system, many
uncertainties surround the organization and the future of disarmament.
Yet I am confident that, under the wise and inspiring leadership
of Kofi Annan, this world body will together overcome the current
challenges. On disarmament - the only certain path to durable and
universal security - self-interest and the human instinct for survival
will finally act as an imperative for public opinion to compel leaders
to adopt restraints and reductions in military expenditures and
weapons arsenals. Until that time comes, we must transform ourselves
into "neo multilateralists" in this critical era, redefining
the role of the UN and reconceptualising the goals of peace and
disarmament, which, through centuries of human existence, have had
to contend with the forces of narrow nationalisms and the primitive
instinct to use force. I know we shall overcome.
May 1, 2003
***Please circulate widely***
Dear Reaching Critical Will friends and advisors,
The first week of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory
Committee for 2003 is well underway. As to be expected, the dominating
concern at this year' PrepCom has been the nuclear ambitions of
the Bush administration and the withdrawal of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea. So far, Ambassador Laszlo Molnar of Hungary,
who is chairing the conference, has ably avoided any dreaded "procedural
quagmire" that could have arisen during debates over the DPRK
crisis. Things seem to be running smoothly in this regard, but the
real work has yet to be hammered out.
Thus far, the usual suspects are making the usual statements. The
UK and other stalwart allies of the United States commend the Moscow
Treaty as an achievement in disarmament, while many Non-Nuclear
Weapon States (NNWS), such as New Zealand, South Africa, and Cuba
(which is making its debut as a State Party to the NPT this year),
have been more accurate in their assessment of the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty, signed last June.
It is critical that NNWS remain steadfast in their demands on the
NWS to fulfil their obligation to disarm, as they are legally bound
to do under Article VI of the NPT, which has now been in effect
for over thirty years. It is true that the United States is bearing
the overwhelming brunt of the criticism at the PrepCom, even though
all NWS share the responsibility to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
Yet as the declared sole superpower dominating global politics with
its new policy of pre-emption, it shoulders the burden of setting
a precedent. Cracks in the foundation of the NPT are exacerbated
by the Bush administration's nuclear policy; as Elizabeth Shafer
points out in her article, "India Reflects U.S. Nuclear Policy"
(News
in Review, No.4: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/NIR/Day4.htm)
As usual, the Reaching Critical Will team, with the help of the
tireless efforts of the WILPF disarmament powerhouse, Katerina Lecchi,
has been busy finalizing the NGO
presentations, (http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/NGOpres2003index.htm)
preparing the daily
newsletter, http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/NIR/Nir2003index.htm)
scanning and posting all
public documents circulated during the plenaries, http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/official2003.htm)
organizing workshops, and coordinating the NGO operations at the
PrepCom.
Due to software problems, the quality of the scanned documents,
including the daily News In Review, is of a significantly
lesser calibre than of years past, and we sincerely apologize for
this. However, as soon as Susi returns to the New York office next
week, she will re-post them in usual PDF (Acrobat) format for everyone's
easy downloading pleasure.
The NGOs have received an abundance of positive support from a variety
of States Parties, in response to their presentations, their side
events, and their materials that have been distributed. We can only
hope that all of our recommendations, our proposals, our critiques,
and our plea for humanitarianism empowers the delegates to recommit
to their obligation to end the nuclear threat.
Please be sure to check the RCW
site for all updates coming out of Geneva.
Best wishes,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
Reaching Critical Will
April 22, 2003
*** Please circulate widely***
In this news alert:
I) DDA launch of Gender Mainstreaming Action Plan
II) Disarmament Commission closes 2003 session
III) NPT update
I) The UN Department of Disarmament Affairs (DDA) launched its Gender
Mainstreaming Action Plan on Tuesday, April 15. Featured on the
panel were Jayantha Dhanapala, the Under-Secretary General for Disarmament
Affairs, Angela King, the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General
on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, Ambassador Harriet Babbitt,
Director of Women Waging Peace, Ambassador Gilbert Laurin, Deputy
Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations, and Joyce
Davis, author of "Martyrdom: Innocence, Vengeance and Despair
in the Middle East." The panel was moderated by Agnès
Marcaillou, chief of the Regional Disarmament Branch at the DDA.
Italian Ambassador Mario Maiolini, current chairman of the Disarmament
Commission (DC) also spoke on the panel, taking the time out of
his busy schedule during these final days of the DC 2003 session
to demonstrate his support for the project. He stated that the implementation
of this gender mainstreaming plan would enhance the work of the
DC, as women would bring "fresh input", and "probably
could help us step forward" with the issues on the agenda.
Mr. Dhanapala, whose steadfast support was critical in the success
of this launch, discussed with pride the precedent that this action
plan would set for other departments within the UN. Through mainstreaming
gender in all of its activities, the DDA will provide standards
and demonstrate critical “lessons learned” for the benefit
of all departments and agencies who must follow this example. He
asserted that all disarmament initiatives will be strengthened through
a more equitable participation by women in all levels of decision
making. "When women move forward," he said, "and
disarmament
moves forward, the world moves forward."
Ambassador Laurin echoed Mr. Dhanapala's remarks, stating that he
"expects, not hopes" that Member States will also follow
the lead of the DDA in mainstreaming gender in all of their activities.
A true "culture of peace," he said, is not possible with
the continued exclusion and marginalization of women.
The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom has
been supporting the DDA in its gender and disarmament work for years,
and we are beyond pleased that the day of the action plan's unveiling
has finally arrived. This plan embraces and utilizes the principle
that women have a special and invaluable contribution to make in
all issues of peace and security, and it is our deepest hope that
the plan will provide for a greater inclusion of women at all levels
of decision-making in this area.
Excerpts
of the public version of the action plan are available at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/genderdisarm/actionpln.pdf
.
II) The 2003 session of the Disarmament Commission came to a close
Thursday, April 17, without reaching a consensus regarding working
group I, "Ways and Means to Achieve Nuclear Disarmament"
or in working group II, "Practical Confidence-Building Measures
in Small Arms and Light Weapons."
The deliberations lasted a day longer than originally scheduled,
in order to facilitate last-ditch efforts to agree on a recommendation.
Despite these eleventh-hour attempts, the sole universal deliberative
disarmament body closed unsuccessfully.
The Rapportuer believed that the lack of consensus reflected the
"complexity of the issues, and not a lack of the efforts of
the participants."
The representative from the U.S., Sherwood McGinnis, believed that
the DC "needs to do a better job of focusing its work."
The task of working group I was "too broad," and his country
expected the group to pick out a few specific ways that "might
be ripe, instead we adopted a catch all approach that introduced
too m any controversial elements."
The representative from the Cote d'Ivoire spoke of the Nuclear Weapons
States (NWS) noncompliance with the 13 Steps to Disarmament, as
promised at the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty. He stated that "the political will is the most important
element," without which "nuclear disarmament will just
be a pious wish."
The representative from Cuba echoed this statement, referring to
"The clear lack of political will shown by some states in moving
forward to this objective" of nuclear disarmament. He added
that Cuba is "particularly concerned by the opposition of some
states even to accept elementary principles such as the fact that
achieving nuclear disarmament would contribute to enhancing international
peace and security." In this critical moment for the international
disarmament regime, a strong decisive outcome from the DC could
have bolstered future global disarmament discussions, including
the upcoming Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee
conference.
III) This is the last News Alert to be released before the Reaching
Critical Will team heads off to Geneva for the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty Preparatory Committee conference. Between organizing NGO
presentations to be delivered to the delegates April 30, meeting
with various disarmament representatives and ambassadors, updating
the Calendar of Events (available at:
www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/NGO%20cal%202003.html) almost hourly,
preparing for the daily NGO News in Review publication, updating
the Shadow Report, and other logistical arrangements, we are nearly
ready to make the big splash at the PrepCom.
Despite the seemingly bleak horizon facing the international nonproliferation
regime, most NGOs remain optimistic that the PrepCom will be fruitful.
We hope that the meeting will serve as a forum through which we
and the Non-nuclear Weapons States (NNWS) can effective demand full
compliance by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) with the 13 Steps
to Disarmament they promised at the 2000 Review Conference. We also
hope to push forward other items long neglected on the NPT agenda,
such as the codification of Negative Security Assurances (NSAs).
For those of you who will be attending the PrepCom, please be sure
to check the calendar frequently. Here is an excerpt of the first
few days' activities:
April 27 4 PM: Mouvement de la Paix and Abolition 2000 proposes
a demo/sit-in in front of the Palais; contact Dominique at lalanne@lal.in2p3.fr
April 27 1-4PM: NGO Committee on Disarmament orientation meeting
at the Centre Universitaire Protestant; contact aaron.tovish@bluewin.ch
April 27 4 PM: NGO Meeting to finalize presentations at the Centre
Universitaire Protestant; contact Colin Archer mailbox@ipb.org
April 28: PREPCOM OPENS
April 28 1-3PM: Lunch Panel on Gender and Disarmament; Conference
Room XXIV; contact: Rhianna Tyson, rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org
April 28- May 9 9-10 AM: NGO Strategy Sessions, Conference Room
XXIV; contact either Rhianna Tyson rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org,
Alice Slater at ASLater@gracelinks.org, or David Atwood at datwood@quno.ch.
April 28 2-3 PM: NGO Press Conference; Heeding the Secretary-General's
Call for a Conference on Nuclear Dangers; Press Room 2; contact:
Aaron Tovish aaron.tovish@bluewin.ch or Susi Snyder, susi@reachingcriticalwill.org
April 29, 1-3 PM: Keynote address by Jayantha Dhanapala, UN Under-Secretary
General for Disarmament, "The NPT: Past, Present and Future,"with
introductory remarks by Jonathan Granoff and Sen. Douglas Roche;
Conference Room XXIV; contact: Urs Cipolat, urs@gsinstitute.org
April 29, 5-7 PM: Compliance Within a Nuclear Abolition Regime Panel
Discussion; Conference Room XXIV; contact: Steve Leeper, leeps@mindspring.org
April 29 7:30-10 PM: The Women's International League for Peace
and Freedom's 88th birthday reception; WILPF Office, 4th floor,
1 Rue de Varembe; contact Susi Snyder, susi@reachingcriticalwill.org
or Katerina Lecche at wilpf@iprolink.ch.
There are MANY more events already scheduled, so be sure to check
the calendar!!
March 10, 2003
***Apologies for any cross postings***
In this News Alert for March 10, 2003:
1) Iraq update
2) The U.S. Congress ratifies the Strategic Offensive Reductions
Treaty (The Moscow Treaty)
3) New on the Reaching Critical Will Website
1. Update on Iraq
As pundits across the mainstream media predict which day the war
on Iraq will start, the peace community has not wavered in its efforts
to stop the impending war. The effects of the unprecedented protests
across the globe on February 15, the nationwide student walk-outs
on March 5, and the Code Pink marches on March 8, are surfacing
in the UN. Through these demonstrations of democracy, many governments
are standing up to the will of the world’s lone superpower
and are voicing their rejection against a possible war in Iraq.
The 116 members of the Non-Alignment Movement concluded their summit
on February 25 in Kuala Lumpur with a powerful joint statement rejecting
war in Iraq. Included in this statement is the “firm condemnation
of all unilateral military actions including those made without
proper authorization from the United Nations Security Council, as
well as of threats of military action against the sovereignty, territorial
integrity and independence of Member States of the Movement which
constitute acts of aggression and blatant violations of the principle
of non-intervention and non-interference.” The full text of
the statement is available at: www.nam2003.com.
The day after the February 15th protests, the Arab ministers for
foreign affairs held an emergency meeting in which they all unanimously
opposed any war in Iraq.
Some members of the Security Council, in an open session on March
7th, referred to the massive anti-war protests as justification
for continuing inspections. Farouk al-Shara, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs for Syria, called the protests on the 15th “an unprecedented
phenomenon history,” that demonstrates the will of the world
to avoid war.
Al-Shara was speaking at the meeting in which the chief weapons
inspectors presented their reports to the Security Council. Last
week, Hans Blix, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC, and Mohamed
ElBaradei, the director-general of the IAEA, had already submitted
written copies of their reports to the Council.
Over the past few weeks, Blix said, Iraq has shown the greatest
cooperation since inspections had resumed in November, although
it still does not qualify as the “full, immediate, and unconditional”
access required by resolution 1441. Iraq has provided more names
of key personnel for interviews and more papers on their past anthrax
program. UNMOVIC has also inspected weapons destruction sites previously
considered too dangerous.
Most significantly, Iraq has begun the destruction of their al Samoud
missiles, after UNMOVIC declared them to be capable of traveling
further than the 150 km limit. Such compliance with UNMOVIC demonstrates
“real disarmament,” Blix said, and is not merely “the
breaking of toothpicks.” Destruction had, however, been paused
for reasons he did not surmise, although since his speech the destruction
has resumed at full speed.
Once again, Blix called for a strengthening of inspections to further
investigate claims of clandestine arms programs, such as the alleged
mobile or underground facilities, of which inspections, thus far,
have yielded no evidence. He also called, once again, for more active
cooperation from Iraq, even as their cooperation has increased in
the three months of renewed inspections.
This week, UNMOVIC will release a report citing 29 remaining disarmament
issues.
Mohamed ElBaradei used his strongest language yet by confirming
that Iraq has not resumed its nuclear weapons program.
ElBaradei reported that interviews with key Iraqi personnel have
been conducted, “even when the conditions were not in accordance
with IAEA modalities” because the information that is obtained
through these interviews “could be crosschecked from other
sources” and verified.
There are three conclusions, he stated, at which the Security Council
could confidently arrive, now three months into the resumed inspections
in Iraq. There is, he said,
- “no indication of resumed nuclear activities;”
- “no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium
since 1990;”
- “no indication to import aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment;”
Documents that supported claims of Iraq’s attempts to procure
uranium from Niger were proven false, ElBaradei said.
To fully carry out the ongoing verification mandate issued in resolution
1441, ElBaradei called for an expanded scope of inspections as well
as the accelerated pace of cooperation from Iraq. He noted that
the last three weeks of increased cooperation was possibly a result
of “increasing international pressure.”
In the responses from the members of the Council that followed,
the usual suspects took the usual positions, with the U.S., U.K.,
and Spain- insisting that the time for inspections has run out.
These three countries are planning on bringing a new resolution
authorizing the use of force to the Security Council next week.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated that his government
sees “ no need for a second resolution” as “peaceful
means are far from exhausted.” He refuted the argument that
disarming Iraq militarily would bring stability to the region, insisting
that war would in fact increase instability and, in the long term,
would facilitate a proliferation of international terrorism.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin proposed three actions
by which to disarm Iraq peacefully. Welcoming Blix’s forthcoming
list of remaining disarmament issues, he called for a hierarchical
arrangement of those tasks in order of importance, and to affix
a program of action for the completion of each. Second, he called
on the inspectors to give a progress report every three weeks, which
would give them more opportunities to report any delays in Iraqi
cooperation. Third, he called for the establishment of timelines.
Resolution 1284, which first created UNMOVIC in 1998 , established
120 days as a measurement of Iraqi compliance. France would be willing
to shorten it, de Villepin said, if the inspectors would consider
such a short time feasible.
China and Russia issued their most blatant rejection of war to date.
China sees “no reason to shut the door to peace,” said
the Minister of Foreign Affairs Jiaxuan Tang. The Chinese people,
he maintained, “are not in favor of a new resolution,”
in particular one issuing the use of force. Peaceful means of disarming
Iraq “really exist,” said Russian Foreign Minister Igor
Ivanov. Russia maintains the “deep conviction” that the
use of force would “inevitably result in enormous loss of life
and is fraught with serious and unpredictable consequences for regional
and international stability.”
Much of the western media has been portraying France as the leader
of the opposition to the war, and the Council hawks have capitalized
this characterization. Ignoring the equally strong opposition voices
of China and Russia- both with France’s veto power- U.K. Foreign
Minister Jack Straw singled out de Villepin in his rejection of
continued inspections. In Straw’s words, although the destruction
of the al Samouds may be significant, what “my friend Dominique
here” doesn’t understand is that it is just “the
tip of the iceberg.”
The United States Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed the
potential of Blix’s report due next week. Identifying remaining
disarmament tasks is not relevant at this point, as old questions
of disarmament, such as Iraqi unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) “could
have been resolved… in the last four months.” He urged
his colleagues not to dismiss the new resolution that “this
Council” has put forth.
II. The U.S. Congress ratifies the Strategic Offensive Reductions
Treaty
On Thursday, March 6, after only two days of debate, the United
States Congress overwhelmingly approved the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty, despite calls from disarmament NGOs insisting
on stronger reductions.
Although the so-called Moscow Treaty would reduce U.S. and Russian
strategic nuclear forces from 5,000-6,000 to 2,200, it does not
require the destruction of the warheads. By allowing each country
to store the warheads and their delivery systems for potential future
use, the treaty violates the principle of irreversibility agreed
upon by all States Parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT).
Furthermore, the treaty lacks any verification measures, a component
of the treaty that the Bush administration hails as testament to
the mutual trust between the two one-time archenemies.
In an age in which discussions on terrorism dominate almost every
international forum, the SORT agreement should be regarded as a
failure to enhance international security. It provides no mechanism
by which to secure the nuclear materials contained within the decommissioned
warheads.
III. Reaching Critical Will website updates
Since January 20, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) has been in
its first session for 2003. Although no substantial progress has
been made on key issues- such as negotiations on a Fissile Material
Cut Off Treaty- many representatives have voiced their support to
reinvigorate the CD as the world’s sole disarmament negotiation
forum. In addition, many representatives have spoken on the need
for discussions on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space
(PAROS).
Reaching Critical Will hosts the full text of CD statements at:
www.reachingcriticalwill.org/cd/speeches03.html.
With the NPT Preparatory Committee conference fast approaching,
disarmament NGOs have been busy preparing their strategy for the
Geneva conference on April 28- May 9. You can read the discussions
taking place online at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/nptlists.html
and www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/preslist.html.
In addition to the newly updated Disarmament Calendar (www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmcal03.html),
there is also a new Calendar of Events for NGOs attending the PrepCom
available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/NGO%20cal%202003.html.
If you or another representative from your organization will be
hosting an event before, during, or immediately after the PrepCom,
send an email to rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org to add your event
to the calendar.
The Disarmament Commission begins their next session on March 31-
April 17. RCW will be posting all documents from the DC on its website
as they become available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/dc/dcindex.html.
In peace,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate
Reaching Critical Will
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom- UN Office
777 UN Plaza
6th floor
New York, NY 10017
USA
phone: +1 212-682-1265
fax: +1 212 286-8211
rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org
www.reachingcriticalwill.org
February 18, 2003
***Please circulate widely***
In this News Alert, February 18, 2003:
1. Blix and ElBaradei report to the Security Council
2. DPRK and U.S. nuclear policy proposals
3. Secretary General Annan Continues Vocal Support for NGOs
The crises in Iraq and North Korea and the issues of disarmament
in these countries are dominating the headlines, cable news reports,
government agendas, and UN meetings. Other equally important issues
in disarmament are being marginalized, or worse, ignored. Negotiations
on the inadequate Strategic Reductions Offensive Treaty (a.k.a.
the Moscow Treaty) begin next week, and there is nary a word in
the papers discussing the several ways in which this treaty conflicts
with the 13 Steps to Practical Disarmament unanimously agreed upon
at the 2000 NPT RevCon. The U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee
on National Security and Foreign Affairs submitted nuclear policy
proposals this week to the White House, which are also in severe
discordance with the principles of the NPT.
While the United States continues to ignore its disarmament responsibilities
under the NPT, positive steps have been made in the disarmament
of Iraq, as the chief weapons inspectors reported.
I would like to remind everyone to join the RCW managed NPT listserves,
through which interested NGOs discuss strategy and presentation
topics for the upcoming NPT PrepCom in Geneva, April 28- May 9.
For more information on the listserves, write to info@reachingcriticalwill.org
with “NPT Listserve” as the subject heading.
Additionally, be sure to check the recently updated 2003 Disarmament
Calendar on Reaching Critical Will website at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmcal03.html.
Sincerely,
Rhianna Tyson
1. Iraq update
Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the Security Council
again Friday, February 14. Blix gave his most positive report of
Iraqi cooperation to date. He stressed the fully operational status
of his inspections teams and their increased efficacy due to the
donation of French Mirage aircraft, Russian Anotovs, U.S. U2s, and
German aircrafts. Additional field offices are being established,
interviews are being conducted, mustard gas shells are being destroyed,
and documents are continually handed over by Iraqi officials.
Through UNMOVIC analyses of samples taken from a vast array of inspections
sites, Blix asserted that these disputed projects were “consistent
with Iraqi declarations.”
Blix confirmed recent reports that the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah missiles
did indeed exceed the 150km limit imposed by resolution 1441 and
that the teams were now beginning the process of destroying them.
Referring to the 1,000 tonnes of chemical weapons that Iraq claims
to have destroyed in the summer of 1999, Blix reasoned that although,
“we must not jump to the conclusion that they exist,”
it is nonetheless a possibility that warrants continued investigation.
Iraq has recently submitted lists of additional experts who can
testify to the destruction of these weapons. Furthermore, Blix said,
documents regarding their past anthrax, VX, and long-range missile
programs that Iraq recently submitted, were “indicative”
of active Iraqi cooperation.
Without explicitly saying such, Dr. Blix refuted points of Powell’s
February 5 briefing to the Council. As the satellite images of trucks
were taken weeks apart from each other, Blix pointed out that there
can be no way to identify that these trucks were used to hide WMD
evidence. Movements of armaments, he said, are normal and “are
not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction.” He
also stated that nations have better intelligence-gathering capabilities
than do inspections teams, and urged nations to share all of their
information with UNMOVIC. He acknowledged the desire to protect
sources, but insisted that all information would be kept confidential
and known only by very few people.
ElBaradei reiterated many aspects of his January 27th report, while
also increasing his approval rating of Iraqi behavior. His teams,
too, were continually expanding their capabilities by improving
their surveying equipment and increasing their aerial capacities.
Iraq has provided the IAEA with more lists of nuclear experts as
well. Questionable dual-use items, such as the notorious aluminum
tubes, have been verified by the IAEA that they are indeed being
used for permitted purposes. However, inspections must continue
in order to ensure that these items are not, at some point, converted
into use for prohibited weapons development.
As per the IAEA’s request, Iraq has provided documents concerning
the procurement of carbon fibers, which are necessary for centrifuge
rotors. ElBaradei verified that these fibers are “not intended
for enrichment purposes.” He also stated that there is no evidence
that Iraq has made any attempt to procure uranium. In the past week,
Iraq has submitted more documents concerning HMX, a powerful explosive,
as well as documents of their laser enrichment program, including
personal notes, student research projects, and classified documents.
The IAEA has only begun to study these submissions.
ElBaradei, like Blix, wished for more interviews, citing that although
every scientist they proposition agrees to the interview initially,
all but a handful insist upon monitors and/or tape recorders present
during the interview.
The responses by the members of the Security Council were less surprising
than Blix’s more positive account. Also rebuking points of
Powell’s speech without specifying as such, French Foreign
Minister Dominique de Villepin argued that French intelligence had
no information of an alleged al-Qaeda-Iraq connection. If there
was such a connection, he maintained, waging war against Iraq would
certainly exacerbate these ties, as well as exacerbating divisions
between cultures. He also raised, and disputed, criticisms often
voiced by various U.S. officials, who argue that inspections are
merely a way to delay inevitable war. War may appear to be the swiftest
solution, he said, but the necessary peace-building process that
must follow will be long, costly, and difficult. The only alternative
is “effective, peaceful disarmament” through inspections.
“War,” de Villepin said, “is the sanction of failure.”
The inspectors’ reports, he insisted, proved that inspections
“are producing results” and that significant gains have
been made in the disarmament of Iraq. Informal protocol was broken
when the chamber burst into thunderous applause at the end of the
French foreign minister’s speech.
Other representatives responded predictably, with Russia and China
favoring more inspections, and Spain and the UK maintaining that
Iraq’s level of cooperation has not changed, and that their
concessions were merely “tricks being played on us,” as
Powell, representing the U.S., said in his response.
Referring to the commissions that Iraq has agreed to establish to
ensure compliance with inspectors, Powell was incredulous of the
recent Iraqi promises. If Iraq was fully cooperating, he said, there
would be a line of scientists wanting to be interviewed. Questions
regarding the movement of trucks and missing tonnes of chemical
weapons would not exist if the regime was indeed fully cooperating.
To read the full text of Blix’s report: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/blix14Febasdel.htm
Full text of ElBaradei’s report: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n005.shtml
**********************************************************************
2. DPRK update
In the situation that Mohamed ElBaradei called “nuclear brinkmanship,”
verbal hostilities between the Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea (DPRK) and the United States are steadily rising. U.S.
media reported this week that the DPRK possesses the capabilities
to hit the western U.S. with a missile, although this had been suspected
since the missile tests fired last year. The United States, in turn,
put 24 long-range bombers on alert for possible deployment for North
Korea.
Meanwhile, the IAEA has officially announced North Korea to be in
violation of its responsibilities under the NPT, and has referred
the matter to the Security Council, (see ElBaradei’s statement:
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n004.shtml)
which has the authority to impose sanctions. North Korea has warned
that sanctions would be tantamount to a declaration of war. Ambassador
Pak Gil Yon, the permanent representative of the DPRK to the UN,
said that the IAEA was involved in a “conspiracy” with
the U.S. to bring about such sanctions. Pak said that if the Security
Council discusses the situation on the Korean peninsula without
acknowledging the culpability of the United States, the DPRK will
not recognize any action taken by the Council.
In addition to official U.S. statements deploring the North Korean
withdrawal of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), there has
been a barrage of editorials in the U.S. press echoing the “rogue”
behavior of the “Stalinist” regime. Absent from these
verbal and written accusations is any discussion of the ways in
which the United States has abrogated its duties in both the 1994
Agreed Framework as well as the NPT.
In the Agreed Framework, the DPRK would freeze its graphite-moderated
reactors and related nuclear facilities in the exchange for two
light water reactors, periodic heavy oil shipments, and the normalization
of relations between the two countries. Nine years after the agreement
was reached, the light water reactors had passed the ground-breaking
phase. Ties were far from normalized after Bush labeled North Korea
as a member of the “axis-of-evil.”
Additionally, in accordance with the spirit of the Nuclear Posture
Review, the National Security Strategy, and other Bush administration
policies, the recent report issued by the House Subcommittee on
National Security and Foreign Affairs entitled, “Differentiation
and Defense: An Agenda for the Nuclear Weapons Program,” recommends
an increased deviation from the 13 Steps to nuclear disarmament
agreed upon at the NPT Review Conference in 2000, including the
deployment of missile defenses in two years, the reduction of nuclear
test readiness to 18 months, and the development of bunker busters,
among other such recommendations.
The paper also lists China along with the now infamous axis-of-evil
members North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as openly hostile or potentially
threatening to the United States. In an attempt to exonerate the
U.S. from disarmament responsibilities, the paper states that “Possession
of weapons of mass destruction alone is insufficient justification
for military action. Possession combined with evidence of the intent
to use those weapons is sufficient.” Unfortunately, the recommendations
in this paper, combined with the Nuclear Posture Review and the
Bush administration’s self-asserted right to pre-emptive strikes,
would still place the United States in the latter category.
Currently, the DPRK has no plans as of yet send an observer mission
to the NPT PrepCom this April in Geneva, although NGOs are still
hopeful that this stance will change. Its withdrawal from the historic
treaty, it maintains, was effective as of January 11, 2003.
North Korean officials say that they are not currently manufacturing
nuclear weapons, although their withdrawal from the NPT signifies
their right to do so. In a situation in which two countries are
actively hostile, and one of them maintains their “right”
to possess and use nuclear weapons, it is irresponsible to insist
that the other country’s “right” is the actions of
a “rogue.” It must be vocalized that no entity- whether
it be a superpower nation-state, or an international group of revenge-seeking
men- has the “right” to the possession of genocidal, suicidal,
and ecocidal nuclear weapons. Until this “right” is dispelled,
and the pursuit of nuclear weapons by all groups is rejected, isolated,
and scorned, no group will be safe from the threat that these weapons
pose.
************************************************************************
3. SG Continues Vocal Support for Civil Society
On February 13, Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated his support
for non-governmental organizations by announcing the establishment
of a panel to examine the important relationship between the UN
and civil society, and to make recommendations for strengthening
the ties between the two. “The goals of the United Nations,”
Annan said, ‘can only be achieved if civil society as well
as governments and international agencies are fully engaged.”
The panel is a component of the reform measures designed to increase
the efficacy and capacity of the UN to respond to the unique challenges
facing the global community today.
The members of the 12 person panel include Fernando Henrique Cardoso
of Brazil, Bagher Asadi of Iran, Birgitta Dahl of Sweden, Peggy
Dulany of the United States and André Erdös of Hungary,
Asma Khader of Jordan, Juan Mayr of Colombia, Malini Mehra of India,
Kumi Naidoo of South Africa, Mary Racelis of the Philippines, Prakash
Ratilal of Mozambique, and Aminata Traoré of Mali. For more
information see http://www.un.org/news.
During these next months leading up to the next PrepCom of the NPT,
Reaching Critical Will and other disarmament organizations are steadfastly
working to ensure optimal achievements in Geneva. Let the encouragement
of the Secretary-General strengthen our resolve and further our
influence on the outcome of this conference, and on all of our endeavors.
February 10
**** Please Circulate Widely ****
Dear Reaching Critical Will Advisors and Friends,
This is the first in a series of updates from New York on the NPT
Preparatory Committee Meeting in Geneva on April 28- May 9, 2003.
Contents: (click to jump)
I. Invitation to the 2003 NPT PrepCom
II. NGO Registration to the 2003 NPT PrepCom
III. What can be achieved at this NPT PrepCom?
IV. The role of NGOs in the PrepCom
V. Invitation to join listserves
VI. Background Information
VII. The 13 Practical Steps for Systematic and
Progressive Disarmament
VIII. Why is the NPT important?
IX. Links for more information
Please feel free to visit RCW's recently updated NPT page at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/nptindex.html,
which contains all official documents from past NPT meetings, analysis
and NGO reports.
Also, we are in the process of updating the address books and listserves.
Until these lists are finalized, we apologize for any cross postings
you may receive. Please reply to this message with the subject "unsubscribe
NPT" if you do not wish to receive these updates.
Best wishes,
Rhianna Tyson
Project Associate, Reaching Critical Will
rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org
I. Invitation to NGOs to attend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Preparatory Committee Meeting (NPT PrepCom), April 28- May 9, 2003.
The next meeting of the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), the second Preparatory Committee Meeting since the
2000 Review Conference, will be held April 28-May 9, 2003, in Geneva.
Ambassador Laszlo Molnar of Hungary is the Chair of the 2003 Preparatory
Committee meeting towards the 2005 Review Conference of the NPT.
All states, both signatories and non-signatories, are invited to
attend the Conference.
In recent PrepComs, NGOs have provided invaluable insight and expertise
to the conference, and their influence is growing. It is imperative
that committed NGOs attend or have input into the NPT Preparatory
Committee meeting in Geneva on April 28- May 9 2003 to explain the
issues, draw attention to some important problems and put pressure
on the parties to achieve a successful outcome. Non-governmental
organizations will be allocated a session to address states parties.
Also on the agenda is a discussion of ways to further enhance the
role of NGOs at the NPT Review Conference in 2005.
II. NGOs SHOULD REGISTER FOR ACCREDITATION TO THIS CONFERENCE
Any NGO wishing to attend needs to apply for accreditation to the
Department of Disarmament Affairs. The DDA has yet to begin accepting
applications for this process, but please be
aware of the necessity of this task. Future RCW NPT alerts will
inform you of the DDA contact person to whom you must submit the
application.
III. What can be achieved at this NPT PrepCom?
_ The recommitment to, and the strengthening of the NPT
_ A review and analysis of Nuclear Weapons States' progress on the
13 point action plan for disarmament
_ A reassessment of the role and level of participation of NGOs
in international fora. Canada, for instance, had promised to draft
a Working Paper for the 2003 PrepCom as a step towards new arrangements
for 2005 RevCon.
_ Possible progress regarding the establishment of an ad hoc committee
on nuclear disarmament, and/or a universal and legally binding instrument
on security assurances to non-nuclear weapons States.
IV. The Role of NGOs
Non-governmental organizations play an important role in the preparation
for and outcome of the Preparatory Committee Meetings and the Review
Conferences. NGOs have the expertise and knowledge to inform delegates
of the truths of nuclear proliferation. As representatives of civil
society, we have the ability to serve as liaison between our grassroots
bases and our UN representatives.
On February 6, in a meeting with his Advisory Board on Disarmament
Matters, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "Non-governmental
organizations have long played a vital galvanizing role in [disarmament
affairs], mobilizing public opinion and motivating political leaders
to act with determination to promote disarmament."
For a full
story on the Secretary-General's remarks, visit the UN News
Centre at: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6092&Cr=disarmament&Cr1=.
To read the transcript
of the Secretary-General's remarks, go to: http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=248.
What can NGOs Do?
_ Attend the NPT Preparatory Committee meeting in Geneva on April
28- May 9, 2003, to explain the issues, draw attention to some important
problems and put pressure on the parties to achieve a successful
outcome. If you cannot attend, there are still important ways by
which you can participate in the PrepCom.
_ Join the "NGO Coalition of NPT Participants" Listserves
(details below)
_ Write letters to your Minister of Foreign Affairs or equivalent,
cc it to your Ambassador in New York (see the RCW website link:
www.reachingcriticalwill.org/govcontacts/govindex.html for a full
listing)
_ Make an appointment to speak with a representative at the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs or equivalent and encourage the Foreign Minister
to attend the conference to publicly urge the NPT hold out states
to promptly ratify the Treaty;
_ Monitor April 28- May 9, 2003, NPT Preparatory Committee meeting
through the Reaching Critical Will website and react to what your
government does or does not say;
_ Attract media attention and publicize your views and your government's
policies on the NPT to the press in your country.
V. Invitation to join the NGO Coalition of NPT Participants Listserves
In order to get ideas and actions started as quickly as possible,
there are two recently created NPT listserves managed by RCW which
we encourage you to join.
The Strategy listserve
The first list will be devoted to strategizing among the NGO disarmament
community. What are the unique challenges facing non-proliferation
and disarmament in 2003? How, as representatives of civil society,
can we maximize our efficacy in confronting these challenges? These
and other strategy-focused discussions will take place on this electronic
forum.
The Presentations listserve
The second list will be concerned entirely with planning the NGO
presentations. This listserve will discuss themes and sub-topics
for the presentations and select convenors who will organize the
groups to write on the topics. Last year there were fourteen presentations
by NGOs, each ten minutes long, covering an effectively wide range
of disarmament and nonproliferation issues, including the weaponization
of space, indigenous perspectives on nuclear usage, health effects
from nuclear programs and a host of others. If you would like to
read transcripts of the NGO presentations or reports from the 2002
PrepCom, you can find them on the Reaching Critical Will website.
(Transcripts are available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/ngostate2002.html;
Reports can be found at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/npt2002report.html.)
The postings from these listserves will be posted on their respective
sites:
Strategy List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/2003PrepComStrategy
Presentations List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group2003PrepComPresentations
As well as on the Reaching Critical Will website.
Other announcements and updates on the NPT process from our New
York office will be distributed on both lists; I apologize in advance
for repeated emails you will receive if signed on to both lists.
How to join
If you are interested in participating, you can choose one of two
ways of registering:
1) Visit the appropriate website (listed above) for the desired
list. If you have not already, you must register with Yahoo, the
site that is hosting the lists and follow the directions provided
by Yahoo.
OR
2) Write to rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org, and enter either "Strategy
List," "Presentations List," or both in the subject
title. You will receive a confirmation email shortly thereafter,
with your listserve ID and password.
VI. Background Information
For more details, visit the RCW website.
_ The NPT contains the only binding commitment to nuclear disarmament
in a multilateral treaty on the part of the Nuclear Weapon States
in Article VI, which states: "Each of the Parties to the treaty
undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures
relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date
and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control."
_ The NPT was opened for signature 1 July 1968 in London, Moscow
and Washington- the United Kingdom, the USSR, and the United States
having been designated the depositary Governments. In 1970, it became
international law.
_ The NPT has been signed and ratified by all Member States to the
United Nations with a few exceptions. India, Israel, and Pakistan
have not signed the treaty; Cuba has recently signed but has not
completed the ratification process. The Democratic People's Republic
of Korea recently became the first state to ever withdraw from the
NPT, although the status of the withdrawal is unclear.
_ The states parties meet every five years at the Review Conference
(RevCon) to assess the implementation of the treaty.
_ Originally drafted as a provisional treaty, the NPT stipulates
that 25 years after entry into force, a conference shall be convened
to decide whether or not the Treaty shall continue indefinitely,
or be extended for an additional fixed period or period.
_ After much heated debate, the 1995 Review Conference indefinitely
extended the treaty- a decision that was tied to a package of decisions.
One of the decisions was aimed at Strengthening the Review Process
of the Treaty and provides for three additional NPT meetings between
Review Conferences, called Preparatory Committee Meetings or PrepComs.
VII. The 13 Practical Steps for the Systematic and Progressive
Disarmament of the World's Nuclear WeaponsAt the 2000 Review Conference,
the states parties that had joined the NPT agreed to a 13 Point
Action Plan for the systematic and progressive disarmament of the
world's nuclear weapons. The consensus reached on these thirteen
practical steps marked significant progress forward in non-proliferation
A major component of the upcoming PrepCom will be the analysis and
review of the signatories' adherence and progress on these thirteen
practical steps which are as follows:
1. The CTBT
The importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without
delay and without condition and in accordance with constitutional
processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.
2. No Testing
A moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear
explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty.
3. Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty
The necessity of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on
a
non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively
verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in accordance
with the statement of the Special Coordinator in 1995 and the mandate
contained therein, taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament
and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The Conference on Disarmament
is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate
commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their
conclusion within five years.
4. Nuclear Disarmament
The necessity of establishing in the Conference on Disarmament an
appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear
disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on
a programme of work which includes the immediate establishment of
such a body.
5. No Going Back
The principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament,
nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures.
6. The Abolition of Nukes
An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish
the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear
disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article
VI.
7. Respect Existing Treaties
The early entry into force and full implementation of START II and
the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving
and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability
and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons,
in accordance with its provisions.
8. Trilateral Initiative
The completion and implementation of the Trilateral Initiative between
the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
9. Step by Step…
Steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament
in a way that promotes international stability, and based on the
principle of undiminished security for all:
_ Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear
arsenals unilaterally.
_ Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard
to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements
pursuant to Article
VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further
progress on nuclear disarmament.
_ The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based
on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear
arms reduction and disarmament process.
_ Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status
of nuclear weapons systems.
_ A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to
minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate
the process of their total elimination.
_ The engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear weapon
States in the process leading to the total elimination of their
nuclear weapons.
10. Safeguards and Disposition
Arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable,
fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required
for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international
verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material
for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently
outside of military programmes.
11. General and Complete Disarmament
Reaffirmation that the ultimate objective of the efforts of States
in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under
effective international control.
12. Reporting
Regular reports, within the framework of the NPT strengthened review
process, by all States parties on the implementation of Article
VI and paragraph 4 (c) of the 1995 Decision on "Principles
and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament",
and recalling the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of
Justice of 8 July 1996.
13. Verifying
The further development of the verification capabilities that will
be required to provide assurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament
agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free
world.
VIII. Why is the NPT important?
_ The NPT is the cornerstone of the global nuclear disarmament regime.
The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the cornerstones
on which all international disarmament efforts are based. This almost
universal treaty contains a solemn promise for negotiations on nuclear
abolition in Article VI.
_ The International Court of Justice ruling in July 1996 found that
States had an obligation to negotiate and complete a treaty banning
all nuclear weapons. The court was unanimous in its interpretation
of Article VI of the NPT, making this treaty and the forum offered
by its meetings central to efforts for nuclear disarmament.
_ The NPT PrepCom will direct the outcome of the upcoming Review
Conference in 2005. We have one four-week opportunity every five
years to encourage the world's governments to act on nuclear disarmament,
and general and complete disarmament. PrepComs set the agenda and
tone of these Review Conference meetings. The purpose of the Preparatory
Committee meetings would be to consider principles, objectives and
ways in order to promote the full implementation of the Treaty,
as well as its universality, and to make recommendations thereon
to the Review conference. These include those identified in the
Decision on principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation
and disarmament, adopted on May 11 1995. These meetings should also
make the procedural preparations for the next Review Conference.
_ The NPT PrepCom represents one of the best opportunities for NGOs
and individuals to voice support for the complete abolition of nuclear
weapons. Non-governmental organizations will be allocated a meeting
to address States Parties.
_ An international convention, or treaty, to abolish nuclear weapons
will be gained through states honoring their Article VI obligations
to work for nuclear disarmament. NGOs prepared a draft Nuclear Weapons
Convention that has gained support from various states. The PrepCom
is the forum by which this monumental convention could amass further
critical support. For more information on the Nuclear Weapons Convention,
including the full text of the draft NWC, visit the RCW website
at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/nwc/nwcindex.html.
IX. Links
*For more background information on the NPT
_ Reaching
Critical Will
_ The Acronym
Institute
_ The UN Department for Disarmament
Affairs
_ The
DDA NPT page
_ BASIC (British
American Security Information Council)
_ Lawyers
Committee on Nuclear Policy
February 6, 2003
Dear Reaching Critical Will Friends and Advisors,
In this News Alert:
1) Columbia shuttle disaster and implications for disarmament
2) US Secretary of State Colin Powell Briefs the UN Security Council
Also, we are in the process of reorganizing the Reaching Critical
Will mailing lists, so I apologize in advance for any cross postings.
Best wishes,
Rhianna Tyson
************************************************************************
1) Columbia shuttle disaster and implications for disarmament
In the wake of the tragic destruction of the space shuttle Columbia,
nuclear nonproliferation analysts are questioning the possible consequences
of such a crisis involving nuclear powered space vehicles.
The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power discusses
NASA's plans to use nuclear-powered space probes at: www.space4peace.org.
The concerns raised in these articles again signify the potential
disasters of the weaponization of space. For more information on
the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), visit the
Reaching Critical Will website at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/paros/parosindex.html,
which includes:
- Relevant treaties
- Relevant resolutions
- Relevant UN documents
- Relevant UN bodies
- Relevant UN conferences
- Working papers in Conference on Disarmament
- Relevant NGOs and websites
- Relevant email lists
- Relevant NGO reports and articles
- UN press releases on PAROS since 1996
2) US Secretary of State Colin Powell Briefs the UN Security Council
Below is a summary of Secretary of State Colin Powell's report and
responses from Security Council members, Iraq, and members of the
UN community.
On February 5, 2003, the United States Secretary of State Colin
Powell presented his highly anticipated report to the United Nations
Security Council regarding U.S. intelligence reports that Iraq continues
to seek weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
In his nearly 90 minute speech, Powell incorporated alleged intercepted
phone conversations between anonymous Iraqi officials and satellite
images with explanatory captions into a complete audio and visual
presentation. The sources for these allegations, he contended, are
"solid," and they include intelligence sources of other
countries.
To underscore the severity of a biological weapon (BW) attack, Powell
waved a small vial of an unnamed white powder and invoked the memory
of the anthrax scare at the Senate in 2001, in which a minute quantity
cleared out the entire building. Iraq, he argued, has been able
to hide its comprehensive BW program in its mobile research and
production labs. The PowerPoint presentation on the giant screen
displayed computer generated pictures of these mobile facilities.
Although they weren't photographs, Powell assured the audience that
they were "extremely accurate" representations of the
approximate 18 at Saddam's disposal. Easily moved on wheels and
rails, these labs are "designed to evade detection," he
said, and can produce and weaponize anthrax and botulism. He asserted
that an ex-Iraqi chemical engineer witnessed a BW experiment gone
awry in 1998, resulting in the deaths of 12 Iraqi agents.
Other unnamed Iraqi defectors affirmed that Iraq has a significant
chemical weapons (CW) program. The U.S. has spoken to Iraqis, Powell
said, who witnessed CW experiments on prisoners. They have reported
an indigenous program to develop VX, one of the most deadly CWs
created. Powell relayed another intercepted message, in which a
commander in the Republican Guard instructed another commander to:
"remove the expression 'nerve agents.' Wherever it comes up
in the wireless instructions." Powell interpreted the message
for the Council: "Don't let anybody know that we have these
nerve agents."
"Dual-use infrastructure," Powell warned, can "turn
on a dime" between "clandestine and commercial productions,"
such as cement factories, alcohol production facilities, and sites
such as Al Musayyib. Displaying satellite images of Al Mussayyib,
he pointed to bulldozers on the site and "freshly graded earth"
that evidenced efforts to conceal chemical weapon activity.
During his report to the Council last week, the director of the
International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei had stated
that, "we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived
its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program
in the 1990s." Powell, on the contrary, asserted that Saddam
has nearly all of the components that it needs to reach its nuclear
goals: it has attempted to acquire the necessary magnets for its
nuclear facilities from India, Russia, and Slovenia, and it successfully
acquired the aluminum tubes for the centrifuge. Only its inability
to acquire fissile material has retarded the nuclear development,
according to Powell.
Powell also addressed the "aluminum tube debate", in which
Iraq and the IAEA maintain that the tubes in question are used for
missile production with distance capabilities under the internationally
imposed limit of 150 km. ElBaradei, in his report to the Council
on January 20 of this year, had stated that the tubes, "unless
modified, would not be suitable for manufacture of centrifuges."
Powell refuted this argument, remarking that the smoothness of the
interior and exterior of the tubes was questionable, and signifies
that the tubes are therefore much more likely to be used in the
centrifuge. Besides, he commented, such tubes were prohibited by
Resolution 687 in 1991.
In addition, the delivery systems in Iraq's possession exceed the
limitations imposed by numerous Security Council resolutions. Recent
observations of al-Samoud and al-Fatah missile test flights exceed
the 150 km limit, for example. Powell stated that U.S. intelligence
believes that Iraq has ballistic missiles capable of up to 1200
km; he then produced a map to illustrate which countries such a
ballistic missile could hit. In addition, U.S. intelligence reported
witnessing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that flew 500 km without
refueling, 420 km more than Iraq's declared capability.
For over a year, the Bush administration has made claims of a link
between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, claims
that are disputed within and between FBI and CIA officials. After
all, Powell contested, Saddam openly supports Palestinian suicide
bombers, and has permitted Hamas, an official terrorist network
to the U.S., to set up an office in Baghdad. Iraq has also attempted
assassinations in the 1990s, Powell said, although he did not directly
refer to the attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush.
Powell rejected the argument that the secularist Saddam loathes
the theological bin Laden by stating that Saddam was "impressed"
with the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and the1998 bombing of
the U.S. embassy in Kenya, and as a result, Saddam has readily offered
support to al-Qaeda. Through interrogations of detainees, the U.S.
has ascertained that there are "poison terrorist cells"
throughout Europe, the mastermind of which lives in northeastern
Iraq and trains Qaeda operatives on the use of BWs. The U.S. also
claims that the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan was a liaison to al-Qaeda,
and that Iraq trained high-level al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq on
chemical and biological weapons.
It is "Saddam's contempt for this Council," Powell maintained,
"and his utter contempt for human life" that necessitates
action by the UN. Saddam's deplorable human rights record underscores
the gravity of his WMD arsenal.
Each of the members of the Security Council responded to the U.S.
briefing, as did the delegation from Iraq, who had been invited
to sit at the table. The members all thanked the United States for
sharing intelligence information with the Council, noting that it
strengthened the United Nations system as a whole. Most of the representatives
were foreign ministers or the equivalent, which also connotes the
importance of this briefing.
The vast majority of representatives noted the desirability and
necessity of unity within the Council to solve global issues, including
the threat of WMD. "The unity of the world community,"
as Igor Ivanov, the foreign minister for the Russian Federation
said, "will continue to be the main guarantee for the effectiveness
of its action. It is precisely unity that has to be pivotal in our
approach to any problems, however complicated they may be."
Although nobody blatantly rejected the possibility of the use of
force, most expressed a desire for strengthened inspections while
urging proactive compliance from Iraq. Delegates also urged all
states to present any intelligence findings to UNMOVIC and the IAEA,
so that they can analyze the data through the onsite inspections
processes.
The British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, was Powell's strongest
advocate for the evidence presented in his report, calling it "a
most powerful and authoritative case against the Iraqi regime."
Asserting that the UK favors the UN process in solving this crisis,
the Council nonetheless "must have a force beyond mere words."
He threatened that the UN, if it did not "meet its responsibilities,"
would meet the same fate as the League of Nations, whose failure
he attributed to its inability to back diplomacy with a credible
threat.
Ivanov, asked why the language of "time frames" is continually
suggested, even though the phrase is completely absent in Resolution
1441.
Cameroon suggested that Secretary General Kofi Annan travel to Baghdad
to speak with Saddam of this "burning crucial problem."
Angola, too, urged the Council to exhaust all of the diplomatic
options before resorting to war. His country, he said, "is
a living testimony to the disastrous consequences of war,"
with millions killed, maimed, or internally displaced. "A peaceful
solution can be found," he maintained.
Syria, the sole Arab country on the Council, insisted that all intelligence
information must be submitted to inspectors to assess accuracy and
to inform the Council appropriately. Syria, reading a prepared statement
by the deputy premier for foreign affairs, said that the option
of war is not only "proof of the failure by the Council to
undertake its duties" but that it is "a failure of the
international system… to bring peace." Having said that,
however, he stated that "Syria still believes in a peaceful
settlement."
France, which had previously announced that it would use its veto
if the United States should prematurely bring forth a resolution
for war against Iraq, stated that it was not ruling out the use
of force entirely. The French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin
strongly stressed the need to maintain unity in the Council. He
noted that inspections have been successful in some areas, but that
Iraq needs to answer unresolved questions posed by the recent reports.
He suggested establishing a coordination center "that would
provide, in real time and in a coordinated matter" intelligence
resources from all member states. Germany's representative, Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer, who also presided over the meeting, encouraged
this suggestion in his closing remarks.
Muhammad Abdallah Ahmad Shati Duri, Iraq's permanent representative
to the UN, made the final remarks. He quickly pointed out the inequity
of time allotted- 90 minutes to U.S.- and a few minutes for the
Iraqi rebuttal. The pronouncements in Powell's statements, he contested,
were "utterly unrelated to the truth." He refuted the
sound bytes as proof, commenting that, with today's technology,
anybody can patch together an audio clip and that there is no way
of proving the sound byte as veritable. Mr. Powell, Duri said, should
have simply submitted this information to the inspectors, who alone
can determine the truth from fabrications. Pointing out contradictions
between the inspectors' reports and the account given by Powell,
he also referred to New York Times articles, including a recent
report on differences within and between the CIA and FBI regarding
the Iraq and al-Qaeda link.
Around the UN, officials remarked that Powell had made the case
for non-cooperation, but had failed to make the case for war. As
de Villepin said, "[Powell's] presentation has provided further
justification for the approach chosen by the United Nations."
Inspectors are not detectors, Powell said, but they are, according
to ElBaradei "an invaluable investment in peace." They
work to preserve peace, as their presence "serve[s] as an effective
deterrence to an insurance against resumption of programs to develop
weapons of mass destruction." Many around the UN community
do not think that the complexities of the inspections process justify
war. The majority of voices are calling for the strengthening of
the inspections by adding more inspectors, fortifying the aerial
and reconnaissance capabilities, and reinforcing border controls.
The purpose of the United Nations, after all, is to maintain the
peace. Inspectors, working under the auspices of the United Nations,
must be given every tool possible to carry out the critical task
of maintaining peace.
Inspectors are not detectors, as Powell correctly stated, but they
are, according to ElBaradei "an invaluable investment in peace."
They work to preserve peace, as their presence "serve(s) as
an effective deterrence to an insurance against resumption of programs
to develop weapons of mass destruction."
777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008
|
