Public and Political Profile for a Nuclear Weapons Convention*

Support for and understanding of the Nuclear Weapons Convention amongst academics, decision makers and the public globally could be perceived to be like the first covering of autumn ice on a lake — widespread but very thin. Public opinion polls in the nuclear weapon states and their allies indicate that an overwhelming majority support negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Yet very few of these people seem to be actively engaged in any process for making it happen. Similarly, a large majority of United Nations members support the UN resolution calling for negotiations leading to a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Yet few of these seem to be engaged with much depth, as evidenced by the low number of responses to the UN Secretary General on this resolution and the low level of official response to the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention after being distributed as a UN document.

There is, however, a considerable amount of unofficial discussion and consideration being given to the Nuclear Weapons Convention, though this is not reported in media and is thus unseen. t could thus be said that support for a NWC is more like an iceberg, which has 90% of its mass unseen under the water and only the small tip showing. The following developments since the publication of Security and Survival are indicative of this.

During debate on the Queen's Speech in the UK Parliament, Liberal Democrat spokesman and Member for North-East Fife, Menzies Campbell said that the United Kingdom should convene a conference of the members of the United Nations Security Council to promote a declaration of all nuclear weapons stocks with the aim of producing an inventory, and to engage in serious negotiations on weapons reduction and entry into a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

In a discussion on the Nuclear Weapons Convention in the UK House of Commons on January 18, 2000, Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North) supported the call for such negotiations. Mr. Savidge was asked by Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) whether he envisaged such negotiations resulting in Britain giving up all its nuclear weapons while countries such as Russia, the United States, France or China retain some of theirs, to which he replied: "I tend to think of such questions as technical matters that can be considered during negotiations. I say that for two reasons: first, the question of whether all countries would give up their weapons at the same time would be a matter for negotiation; secondly, we should remember that we belong to military alliances, which means that Britain could be in a position to give up its weapons before certain other countries did. It could be rather difficult to say that Britain would give up all its weapons before certain other countries did." (See UK Update in "International Security: Signs of Change and Conflict," Section 1, for more excerpts from UK Parliament speeches.)

The Nuclear Weapons Convention has continued to receive attention in the United Nations through statements of support in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), an annual UN resolution, and statements to the UN Secretary-General on a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

On December 1, 1999, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution entitled "Follow-up to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons." The resolution welcomes the unanimous conclusion of the ICJ that "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control," and "Calls once again upon all States immediately to fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 2000 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination." (UNGA Res. 54/54Q (L.43)) The resolution was similar to ones adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996, 1997 and 1998.

Of the official and de facto nuclear weapon states, China, India, and Pakistan supported the resolution. The other official nuclear weapon states, some of their NATO allies and Israel opposed it. The United States has explained its opposition to the resolutions by stating that it is "a repetition of calls made earlier in other resolutions for immediate multilateral negotiations on the timebound elimination of nuclear weapons."

Unlike the Group of 21 proposal, however, for a timeframe for the elimination of nuclear weapons, L.45 calls for the commencement of multilateral negotiations leading to the conclusion of a Nuclear Weapons Convention without proposing a timeframe for either conclusion of the negotiations or the actual elimination of nuclear weapons. New Zealand, in supporting the resolution in 1996, explained that this "allows for [such] a programme of intermediate steps towards the final goal of a convention banning nuclear weapons. It does not seek to impose a timebound framework on these negotiations."

In introducing the resolution, Ambassador Hasmy Agam, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations, attempted to clarify some other misunderstandings about the Nuclear Weapons Convention approach:

• "It has been alleged that the Draft Resolution's call for multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention is unrealistic and lacked credibility. Let me clarify: the Draft Resolution calls on States to commence multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of the convention; it does not talk in terms of commencing immediate negotiations on the convention. It thereby allows for the very same kinds of disarmament measures that the nuclear weapon states themselves are committed to support. Therefore, the approach called for by the resolution, is not unrealistic but is in fact compatible with the incremental approaches mooted by others."

• "The contention that the resolution relieves non-nuclear-weapons-states of any disarmament responsibility does not hold water. It calls upon all States to fulfil the obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament; it does not single out nuclear-weapon-states only."

• "A further contention was that the resolution removed the obligation under Article VI of the NPT in relation to ‘general and complete disarmament.’ The Court, in arriving at its conclusion, relied on international law, of which the NPT obligation in Article VI is part, as well as other disarmament and customary law. The Court's conclusion that there is an obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament made no linkage between such an obligation and ‘general and complete disarmament;’ neither does the NPT make a direct link. It merely states that there is an obligation to do both."

The resolution was cosponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe and was adopted by a vote of 114 in favour, 28 against and 22 abstentions.(For further discussion on the UN resolutions, see "The Nuclear Disarmament Journey: Steps Leading to the Final Goal. Comments on the United Nations Draft Resolution on the World Court Advisory Opinion", Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy. www.lcnp.org.)

Five countries made written statements to the UN Secretary-General in 1999 in response to a request in UN resolution 53/77W, calling for views of member states on the implementation of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion through the commencement of negotiations leading to a Nuclear Weapons Convention. (UN Document A/54/161)

Mexico stated its support for the resolution and reported on actions taken with a view to giving effect to the resolution including:

• On June 9, 1998, Mexico, together with Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, and Sweden, made the joint declaration on nuclear disarmament entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda" which sets out an action plan for nuclear disarmament (A/53/138).

• In the context of the Conference on Disarmament, Mexico supported the initiatives to define the mandate of the working group on nuclear disarmament, as well as the negotiation of an international legal instrument on negative security assurances. Furthermore, Mexico notes with regret the persistent opposition to initiatives for the establishment of an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament charged with developing a convention on the banning of nuclear weapons in accordance with the proposal contained in document CD/1501.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reported that it "does not own, develop, produce, test, deploy, stockpile, transfer, threaten to use, or use weapons of mass destruction in general, or nuclear weapons in particular. It reiterates its firm rejection of weapons of mass destruction of all kinds and affirms that the continued existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to all mankind, that their use would have consequences for the planet Earth, and that safety from such a disaster lies in the complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction in general, and of nuclear weapons in particular."

The Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, India, and Cuba also made statements of support.

In 1998, New Zealand, Malaysia and Mexico made statements to the UN Secretary-General on this question. New Zealand’s submission included the text of the June 1998 Declaration of Foreign Ministers of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden calling for a new agenda for nuclear disarmament.

All states are invited again to inform the Secretary-General of the efforts and measures they have taken in response to the UN resolution calling for the implementation of the ICJ advisory opinion through negotiations leading to the conclusion of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

On February 24, 1999, US Representative Lynn Woolsey submitted House Resolution 82 to the Committee on International Relations. The resolution:

• Welcomes the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention as a discussion document intended to further negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament;

• Urges the President to initiate multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a Nuclear Weapons Convention; and

• Requests the President to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the efforts and measures the United States has taken on the implementation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 52/38 O and nuclear disarmament.

Current endorsers of the resolution include Representatives Robert Andrews, Tammy Baldwin, Earl Blumenauer, Sherrod Brown, Lois Capps, PeterDeFazio, Anna Eshoo, Eni Faleomavaega, Bob Filner, Barney Frank, Charles Gonzales, Earl Hilliard, Maurice Hinchey, Rush Holt, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Denis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Nita Lowey, Bill Luther, Carolyn Maloney, Edward Markey, Jim McDermott, James McGovern, Cyntia McKinney, George Miller, Patsy Mink, Jerold Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Olver, Major Owens, Lynn Rivers, Bobby Rush, Janice Schakowsky, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Pete Fortney Stark, Mike Thompson, John Tierny, Edolphus Towns, Robert Underwood, Henry Waxman.

A number of governmental and non-governmental consultations, roundtables, panels, and workshops on the Nuclear Weapons Convention were reported in Security and Survival: The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (Section 2-61). Others since then include:

• On March 19, 1999, the University of Costa Rica hosted a workshop on the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention and prospects for achieving an actual Nuclear Weapons Convention. The workshop was convened by Dr. Carlos Vargas, who represented Costa Rica in the ICJ advisory opinion on nuclear weapons, and included Sr. Rodrigo Carazo, former President of Costa Rica.

• From Oct 28-29, 1999, the Simons Foundation in Canada, in conjunction with Simon Fraser University, Project Ploughshares, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, brought together government officials, arms control experts, lawyers, and NGO representatives to consider in particular, "the question of how to move forward from a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention to a Nuclear Weapons Convention." The report of the consultation is available from the Simons Foundation in Vancouver.

• From Jan 26-27, 2000, the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, hosted a consultation of US officials, ambassadors and government representatives from other key countries, arms control experts, and members of the Middle Powers Initiative, to discuss the nuclear disarmament agenda. The consultation included a session on the NWC and when it might be achievable. Interestingly enough, none of the officials from nuclear weapon states or any others said that a Nuclear Weapons Convention was not feasible. Many did think, however, that it was not possible for a number of decades.

On February 23, 2000 the New Zealand Parliament adopted without dissent a motion moved by Prime Minister Helen Clark, marking the dawning of the year 2000 with an appeal to all member states of the United Nations to join in fulfilling the obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

In September 1999, Merav Datan and Alyn Ware, co-authors of Security and Survival: The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, undertook a speaking tour in Aotearoa-New Zealand. They spoke with government officials and members of parliament, at public meetings, with members of the media, with lawyers groups, and with peace groups about the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention and the road towards achieving an actual Nuclear Weapons Convention. Following the tour, a New Zealand branch of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms was formed to focus on the Nuclear Weapons Convention, and the Labour Party, which became the major governing party in November, amended its policy to include specific support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

Public opinion polls and organisations and municipalities internationally indicate growing support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

Public opinion polls conducted during 1997 and 1998 in nuclear weapon states, Western states and others consistently indicate a small to medium majority supporting nuclear disarmament. However, such support is increased considerably (up to 90%+) when the public is asked whether they support negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The results were as follows:

Do you want your government to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention?

Agree: 87%, Disagree: 10%, Undecided: 3%

Do you think that any country with nuclear weapons should abolish them, or are they necessary in order to protect the country?

Abolish: 61%, Are Necessary: 31%, Undecided: 8%

Do you want your government to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention?

Agree: 87%, Disagree: 11%, Undecided: 2%

Do you want your government to lead negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention?

Agree: 92%, Disagree: 7%, Undecided: 1%

Do you think Norway should work actively for a ban on nuclear weapons?

Agree: 92%, Disagree: 5%, Undecided: 3%

Do you think that any country with nuclear weapons should abolish them?

Agree: 87%, Disagree: 9%, Undecided: 4%

Do you agree that Belgium should work actively for a ban on nuclear weapons?

Agree: 72%, Disagree: 10%, Undecided: 18%

Australia:

Do you want your government to help negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention?

Agree: 92%, Disagree: 7%, Undecided: 1%

Japan:

Do you think that any country with nuclear weapons should abolish them, or are they necessary in order to protect the country?

Abolish: 78%, Are Necessary: 18%, Undecided: 4%

Source: Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE), New York

The findings indicate a general understanding and strong preference for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The concept of a Nuclear Weapons Convention appears considerably more attractive than a general call for nuclear abolition, indicating that the public in general does perceive a Nuclear Weapons Convention as both a feasible and effective path towards nuclear disarmament and one that addresses the various security concerns surrounding nuclear disarmament.

Abolition 2000, a global network to eliminate nuclear weapons, was formed in 1995 with a specific objective to support the conclusion of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Over 1700 non-governmental organisations and municipalities have supported Abolition 2000’s call for the immediate commencement of negotiations leading to the conclusion of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Abolition 2000 aims to increase this number to 2000 by the end of 2000. In addition, over 13 million individuals have signed the A2000 petition supporting a NWC. For more information visit the Abolition 2000 website at www.abolition2000.org

777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008