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.
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.
For more NGO analysis on the First Committee, see Rebecca
Johnson's report at: .
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: .
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 "
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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.
, another
project of the WILPF UN Office, is compiling a Gender Index
of all GA statements that reference gender, women, and .
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: .
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.
, a project of the , 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 .
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.
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:
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.
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.”
The General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International
Security convenes October 6.
The Provisional Agenda can be downloaded by 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.
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 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.
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.
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 )
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.
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.
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
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 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
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.
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 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
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
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."
