[By tomorrow, July 7, is the draft treaty, being negotiated right at this moment in New York, scheduled to be finalised. In case of failure, it will call for fresh authorisation by the UNGA.
Reproduced below are two last-minute report-cum-comments, from the Ground Zero - the UN Headquarters, by two civil society organisations, from New Zealand and Canada.] I/II. [While public attention to nuclear threats has waned, such threats are actually expanding, leading some experts like former US Secretary of Defence William Perry to argue that the risk of nuclear war is higher now than it was during the Cold War. A recent UK Guardian report noted that the rise of cyberattacks has drastically increased the risk of nuclear war. There are still 15,000 nuclear weapons, with almost 2000 Russian and US weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready for launch within 30 minutes. This situation has brought humanity to the brink of nuclear war several times already, through system failure, accident or miscalculation. In addition, recent research building on the climate models of the International Panel on Climate Change shows that even a “small” nuclear war using 0.1% of the current world arsenal would lead to radical, almost immediate climate change, leading to the starvation of up to 2 billion people.] http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1707/S00079/un-to-adopt-historic-ban-on-nuclear-weapons.htm UN to adopt historic ban on nuclear weapons Thursday, 6 July 2017, 1:02 pm Press Release: Disarmament and Security Centre Disarmament & Security Centre Christchurch, New Zealand www.disarmsecure.org MEDIA ADVISORY - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE United Nations Headquarters New York 5 July 2017 UN to adopt historic ban on nuclear weapons The United Nations is set to make history on Friday, when it is due to adopt a treaty banning nuclear weapons, breaking a 20-year-plus deadlock in nuclear disarmament. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was negotiated by more than 130 UN members, with input from international civil society and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement . The Treaty explicitly bans the use, development, testing, production, manufacture, acquisition, possession, stockpiling and transfer of nuclear weapons, and also bans any signatory from assisting or encouraging others to undertake these activities. The Treaty also bans threatening to use nuclear weapons, which is highly significant, as it can be interpreted as challenging the nuclear weapon states’ doctrines of nuclear deterrence, which are based on an implicit threat to use nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons ban treaty further stigmatises nuclear weapons, putting them in the same category as other indiscriminate, inhumane weapons that are banned under international law, such as chemical and biological weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. New Zealand has contributed strongly to the process of banning nuclear weapons. It was among the leaders of the humanitarian initiative which helped build political will to pursue a new disarmament treaty, then co-sponsored the 2016 UN resolution that kick-started negotiations, and finally, has served as a Vice President of the UN conference to negotiate the nuclear weapon prohibition treaty. Banning nuclear weapons is a vital next step towards a comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Convention that would provide for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, like the enforceable treaties that exist to eliminate other weapons of mass destruction. This is essential to ensure international peace and security, and indeed, human survival. While public attention to nuclear threats has waned, such threats are actually expanding, leading some experts like former US Secretary of Defence William Perry to argue that the risk of nuclear war is higher now than it was during the Cold War. A recent UK Guardian report noted that the rise of cyberattacks has drastically increased the risk of nuclear war. There are still 15,000 nuclear weapons, with almost 2000 Russian and US weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready for launch within 30 minutes. This situation has brought humanity to the brink of nuclear war several times already, through system failure, accident or miscalculation. In addition, recent research building on the climate models of the International Panel on Climate Change shows that even a “small” nuclear war using 0.1% of the current world arsenal would lead to radical, almost immediate climate change, leading to the starvation of up to 2 billion people. Despite generally supporting bans on other inhumane weapon type, the five recognised nuclear weapon states and most of their allies, including Australia, have boycotted these multilateral treaty negotiations for a ban on the most inhumane weapons of all. Yet as the Canberra Commission stated in 1996, the possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them. Recent North Korean nuclear and missile tests underscore this point, and offer a further demonstration of why it is essential to move swiftly towards nuclear disarmament. Background information / sources 1. " Nuclear Ban Dailies " (by expert disarmament organisation, Reaching Critical Will a. especially, the latest version, " WE’VE GOT A TREATY BANNING NUCLEAR WEAPONS " 2. International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons a. http://www.icanw.org/campaign-news/negotiations/ b. This page has updates on government positions and statements, and excellent FAQs on how this treaty relates to international nuclear politics / law 3. Prof. Tilman Ruff of Melbourne University / IPPNW a. has written an excellent blog post that summarises progress thus far on the draft nuclear weapons ban treaty text. b. https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2017/07/01/strong-ban-treaty/ 4. In the NZ context, www.nuclearfreeNZ30.org.nz a. Developed by New Zealanders Dr Lyndon Burford, and Lucy Stewart b. blog posts and video interviews from the treaty, with survivors of nuclear testing, and with activists, academic experts etc. c. Information about the 30th anniversary of NZ's nuclear free law (8 June 2017) 5. Official UN conference website a. https://www.un.org/disarmament/ptnw/index.html II. [A new, bifurcated international nuclear order will come into existence with the ban treaty’s adoption. It will feature the nine nuclear-armed states “doubling down” on their investment in nuclear arsenals, with massive modernization programs underway. It may fuel further nuclear proliferation as other states seek to avail themselves of nuclear weapons — the purported security benefits of which the existing nine powers cannot seem to do without. The allies, the “handmaids” of this nuclear orthodoxy, will continue to affirm the dogma of nuclear deterrence and participate in its rituals. A new “moral majority” of states will continue to stand apart from these proceedings, but beyond their example, they will have little means to influence the behaviour of the minority. The NPT-based global compact will likely be weakened by defection de jure or de facto.] https://www.opencanada.org/features/new-nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty-lines-are-drawn-sand/ With a new nuclear weapons ban treaty, lines are drawn in the sand The adoption of a ban treaty will usher in a new, divided nuclear order, with nuclear-armed states and their allies on one side and a ‘moral majority’ of states on the other. Where will Canada’s nuclear allegiances lie? BY: PAUL MEYER / JULY 5, 2017 trident Protesters take part in a protest against the Trident nuclear missile system in London, February 27, 2016. REUTERS/Paul Hackett BY: PAUL MEYER Fellow in International Security at Simon Fraser University and a Senior Fellow at The Simons Foundation, Vancouver Read The Fine Print: Comparing disarmament texts, before and after Trump Trump’s Nuclear Weapon Policy: A loose cannon in the White House? Canada and the elusive fissile material ban: Old wine in new bottles? This Friday, July 7, should mark the conclusion of negotiations at United Nations headquarters on the world’s first treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. The 130 states engaged in the process have converged their positions over four weeks of negotiation this year in order to produce a concise agreement that fills the “legal gap” in the international nuclear order. That order is encapsulated in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that forbids acquisition of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear states and commits the five nuclear weapon states — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — to eventual disarmament. The NPT however failed to prohibit possession or use of nuclear weapons and, despite its 47 years of existence, has been unable to bring about nuclear disarmament. This reality has led a majority of the NPT’s 191 states parties and many civil society groups to seek a different path towards the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The draft treaty being finalized in New York this week is due to be adopted by the conference on July 7, and will be open for signature as of Sept. 19 during the UN General Assembly. The treaty will formally enter into force after its 50th ratification. The treaty will prohibit the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and outlaw the possession of these arms. In this sense it will go beyond the existing commitments of non-nuclear weapon states under the NPT while being consistent with that accord. Not surprisingly, the nine states currently possessing nuclear weapons are not participating in these negotiations, nor are the non-nuclear weapon states in alliances with nuclear-armed states (with the notable exception of the Netherlands). These states recognize that the ban treaty would represent a potent stigmatization of the nuclear weapons they still cling to and an act of political and moral protest against their retention. Canada is among the so-called “umbrella” states that have followed the lead of their nuclear weapon allies in boycotting the ban treaty negotiations. These states (most NATO members plus U.S. allies such as Australia, Japan and South Korea) have privileged their membership in alliances that still rely on nuclear deterrence doctrines (i.e. that threaten the use of nuclear weapons in some contingencies) over their longstanding support of nuclear arms control and disarmament. These states’ refusal to engage in the UN-mandated negotiations on the ban treaty has not only prevented them from influencing the process and its product, but has also highlighted the schism that has erupted within the NPT membership over how nuclear disarmament is to be brought about. The ban treaty will have provisions for eventual adherence by nuclear-armed states, either through a “join and destroy” or a “destroy and join” model, including verification by a competent international agency. This treaty however, unlike the NPT, will not allow for a “grey zone” where nuclear weapon states and their allies, some of which permit stationing of nuclear weapons on their territory, are able indefinitely to pay lip service to the aim of nuclear disarmament without any meaningful advance towards it. The Canadian government has decried the ban treaty process for being “premature” and “ineffective” in the face of nuclear-armed state opposition. It has reaffirmed its support for “the step-by-step” approach to nuclear disarmament, despite the fact that none of the identified steps have been taken over decades. In a pale imitation of the ban treaty, it has held up its leading role on a UN expert group regarding elements of an eventual treaty to prohibit the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. A study group however is not the equivalent of an actual treaty negotiation, and the UN preparatory group Canada will chair over the next two years will still be subject to a consensus rule, selective membership, closed door proceedings and a mandate premised on eventual negotiation in the Conference of Disarmament, a multilateral body so dysfunctional that it has been unable to agree on a work program for 20 years. Perhaps if Canada had initiated, in concert with like-minded states, a real multilateral negotiation of a fissile material production ban, it could have offered up a serious complement to the nuclear weapon ban treaty, but this more ambitious option was not pursued. "A new, bifurcated international nuclear order will come into existence with the ban treaty’s adoption." A new, bifurcated international nuclear order will come into existence with the ban treaty’s adoption. It will feature the nine nuclear-armed states “doubling down” on their investment in nuclear arsenals, with massive modernization programs underway. It may fuel further nuclear proliferation as other states seek to avail themselves of nuclear weapons — the purported security benefits of which the existing nine powers cannot seem to do without. The allies, the “handmaids” of this nuclear orthodoxy, will continue to affirm the dogma of nuclear deterrence and participate in its rituals. A new “moral majority” of states will continue to stand apart from these proceedings, but beyond their example, they will have little means to influence the behaviour of the minority. The NPT-based global compact will likely be weakened by defection de jure or de facto. The divisions of the new nuclear order may bring greater clarity and honesty to the positions adopted by the members of the respective camps. It will not necessarily bring more stability to the global nuclear regime. Canada may find its nuclear allegiances challenged in a way it has not experienced since the advent of the atomic age. The ban treaty will produce a new, reforming spirit in global nuclear affairs. Its impact on the world is difficult to foresee, but, as is often said of nuclear weapons themselves, it will not be easy to put this genie back into the bottle. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
