Talks to ban nuclear materials need a fresh start

Posted on Paul Meyer

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

If grades in disarmament diplomacy were given out for perseverance, then Canada would surely merit an “A” for its efforts on behalf of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, or FMCT. Forging this treaty, which would ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, has been a supposed goal of the international community for over half a century. In that time, though, negotiations to bring the treaty about never even started, suggesting that the FMCT is one of those worthy goals that are periodically affirmed without any serious effort to realize them. And though Canada has traditionally led efforts to move forward on the treaty, the Canadian-led group most recently charged with supporting future negotiations has submitted a report that deserves a failing grade.

This is unfortunate, because the FMCT, if it ever happens, could have a major impact on reducing nuclear proliferation. The problem is that the 25-member preparatory group asked to facilitate the task of future negotiators has recommended that “the negotiation of a treaty … begin without delay in the Conference on Disarmament.” This is not a realistic solution, as anyone familiar with the Conference on Disarmament knows it does not act “without delay” on anything. It simply does not get things done. To initiate work on the FMCT will require its liberation from this diplomatic dungeon.

Read more

Good News Service #58: Autumn 2018

Posted on Murray Thomson
  1. North, South Korea begin demilitarizing the ‘scariest place on earth.’
  2. UN conference adopts treaty banning nuclear weapons
  3. Luxembourg ratifies Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women
  4. The Netherlands accepts the Protocol amending the European Landscape Convention
  5. Nigeria creates website so vulnerable groups can get legal assistance
  6. UN Women’s Global Innovation Coalition for Change launches the Gender Innovation Principles
  7. UK boosts World Food Program efforts to break the cycle of hunger in Malawi
    Republic of (South) Korea contributes rice to serve 420,000 refugees in Uganda
  8. Djibouti and Eritrea normalize relations in the Horn of Africa
  9. UK announces 46 million pounds for land mines clearance benefitting 800,000 globally

Download the full issue here (docx)

The Koreas are getting along – but denuclearization questions remain

Posted on Marius Grinius

The Globe and Mail | 20 September 2018

South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in is a man in a hurry; North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un is a man on a roll.

Prior to Mr. Kim’s 2018 New Year’s speech, the world watched North Korea relentlessly improve its nuclear weapon and missile capabilities to the point where it could threaten not only the immediate region but also North America, despite tightening UN sanctions, U.S. threats of “fire and fury” and China’s measured disapproval.

Mr. Kim’s initial opening to have North Korea participate in the Winter Olympics and Mr. Moon’s quick positive response to field a combined North-South Olympic team led to a frenzy of summit meetings that has not abated. The first Kim-Moon summit in April in Panmunjom reiterated the main themes of two earlier high-level attempts to ease North-South tensions and perhaps move toward eventual denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The third summit, which concluded Wednesday, has further moved the yardsticks forward in creating Mr. Moon’s vision of peace and co-prosperity for both Koreas. Mr. Kim, however, has yet to demonstrate his commitment to dismantle his nuclear weapons, linchpins for his regime’s survival.

And therein lies the rub. Since the New Year, Mr. Kim has repaired North Korea’s badly frayed relations with China by meeting with President Xi Jinping three times. Perhaps more importantly, the Panmunjom Summit led to Mr. Kim’s unprecedented meeting in Singapore last June with U.S. President Donald Trump. Their joint statement was short on specifics: establishment of new U.S.-North Korea relations, efforts to build a lasting peace regime, a North Korean commitment to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and recovery of U.S. missing-in-action soldiers from the Korean War. What remains worrisome is that the two leaders mostly talked in private, with only interpreters present, and no one really knows what else they agreed to except to seemingly be new best friends.

At issue is what denuclearization really means. North Korea complained of US. gangster tactics when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried to establish a road map forward that would include complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization. Even Mr. Trump admitted that there has been no progress on denuclearization. Through South Korean officials, however, Mr. Kim recently proclaimed his “unwavering faith” in Mr. Trump and asked for a second meeting with him, perhaps as a way around any objections by more cautious and skeptical U.S. officials. Preparations for the second Trump-Kim meeting are under way.

Mr. Moon has now upped his courtship of Mr. Kim both in scope and urgency. With this week’s Pyongyang Joint Declaration, Mr. Moon and Mr. Kim agreed to implement a series of military confidence-building measures to prevent accidental military clashes. Mr. Moon promised Mr. Kim visions of prosperity by reopening North-South rail and road connections and eventually establishing special economic zones. The South Korean leader’s delegation of 200 people included heads of South Korea’s key chaebols, the huge industrial enterprises like Samsung and Hyundai. In addition, Mr. Moon promised to strengthen humanitarian co-operation. Mr. Kim should find these promises enticing. They agreed to participate together in the 2020 Summer Olympics and bid to host the 2032 Summer Olympics.

Finally, both leaders agreed “to co-operate closely in the process of pursuing complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” Mr. Kim promised to dismantle a missile engine test site and launch platform, as he had already agreed, but this time under observation by experts “from relevant countries” (presumably including the U.S.) and to dismantle a nuclear facility, as North Korea had in the 1990s only to renege later. Mr. Kim also agreed to visit Seoul at an early date, a first for a North Korean leader.

As the North-South romance continues at a whirlwind pace, many questions remain, especially around denuclearization. North Korea, claiming that it has already taken concrete measures by stopping nuclear weapon and missile tests, has insisted that the U.S. take commensurate measures beyond cancellation of combined military exercises with the South. Promised U.S. security assurances to the North remain undetermined.

The North has not revealed numbers and locations of its nuclear weapons, missile systems or nuclear production facilities. Questions around verification have not been addressed. Indeed, it is not evident that any serious discussions, let alone negotiations, are taking place. Mr. Kim and Mr. Moon seem eager to declare the official end of the Korean War and eventually to sign a peace treaty. Both possibilities raise serious U.S. security concerns.

Previous North-South courtships ended in bitter disappointment and even military clashes. Maybe this time will be different.

Marius Grinius is the former Canadian ambassador to South Korea (2004-07) and concurrently to North Korea (2005-07). He is a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and an associate member of Canadian Pugwash Group.

Hiroshima Day Commemoration

Posted on Setsuko Thurlow

Peace Garden, Nathan Phillips Square, Toronto | August 6, 2018

One year ago, on July 7, 2017 at the United Nations in New York, 122 nations took a bold, historic step when the delegates voted to adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The Treaty filled a gaping hole in international law, providing a comprehensive prohibition on the last weapons of mass destruction to be declared illegal; the only weapons that could not only end all of us, but deny future generations the very possibility of being born.

When the voting results were displayed I felt stunned and speechless with tears of joy welling in my eyes, and in the din of the thunderous applause I realized the significance of the event. I intuitively shared my euphoria with those massacred indiscriminately in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 72 years before, to whom we made a vow that their deaths would not be in vain, that we would commit our lives to ensure that their experience would not be repeated by any other human beings.

The conference chair gave me an opportunity to offer concluding remarks. With great conviction I declared “Nuclear weapons have always been immoral, now they are illegal! This is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons! Let us move forward together and change the world!”

The Treaty opened for signatures at the United Nations on September 20, 2017 and the second signing ceremony will be opened this September 26th. We are now up to 59 signatories and 14 ratifications from diverse regions. When the 50th nation ratifies the TPNW it will enter into force. The pace of ratifications may seem slow, but experts tell us that it has been faster than for any other treaty related to weapons of mass destruction, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The Treaty Coordinator reports that parliamentary, departmental and legislative processes towards joining the Treaty are well underway in many countries in Africa, Latin America, South East Asia and the Pacific. Recently Switzerland’s first chamber of parliament voted to join the TPNW, and New Zealand’s Cabinet has ratified the Treaty just a few days ago. The European Parliament has repeatedly recommended that all 28 EU member states sign and ratify the Treaty.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN, is a coalition of 468 civil society organizations in 101 nations. ICAN has played a leading role, working with 122 nations, in developing the Ban Treaty, and ICAN is now dedicated to seeing the implementation of the Treaty.

Tireless ICAN campaigners around the world have been engaged in a variety of activities to promote the TPNW and press the governments to ratify the Treaty. In Europe there were protests at the governments of Britain and Spain, protest at the NATO summit in Brussels, and protest at the
Helsinki summit between the presidents of the two nuclear super powers, who control 90% of all nuclear weapons between them. There have also been blockades of U.S. nuclear bases in Germany. After months of campaigning the Church of England Synod voted to support the nuclear ban treaty. We recall that the Holy See was one of the first to ratify the Treaty.

Around the Pacific, there has been a press conference in Singapore with ICAN’s clear roadmap to the elimination of nuclear weapons. In Australia protests have broken out against US weapons manufacturers investing in Australian universities. In Japan over 320 municipal and prefectural governments, 20% of all such governments, have given their support for the TPNW and demanded that the national government play a leadership role.

Another aspect of the campaigners’ action involves the divestment of funds from nuclear weapons manufacturing. Since the Treaty’s adoption, the Norwegian Pension Fund, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund with assets over US$ 1 trillion, the largest Dutch pension fund ABP, Deutsche Bank, and major Belgian bank KBC have announced that they will exclude from their investments companies that produce nuclear weapons.

Lastly but most importantly, what has our city, Toronto, been doing to ensure that the TPNW will come into force? In April, the Toronto Board of Health and City Council both unanimously agreed to “request the Government of Canada
to sign the United Nations Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons”. In addition, City Council has re-affirmed that Toronto is a nuclear weapons-free zone.

In December I was elated and humbled to co-accept the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of ICAN for our “work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and our “ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons”. The TPNW combined with the Nobel Peace Prize have become a powerful force to further stigmatize nuclear weapons and their possession.

Thus far Canada has not supported, or even participated in, this U.N. Treaty. In a democracy we believe that citizens have a right to be listened to by the government, and the government has the responsibility to protect its citizens. 79% of Torontonians have expressed a desire for a world without nuclear weapons. Canada must return to its legacy of global peace building and be on the right side of history by ratifying the Treaty.

Two minutes to midnight

Posted on Setsuko Thurlow

Toronto Star | 5 August 2018

Despite an initial de-escalation in the nuclear confrontation between the United States and North Korea, the world is still at the greatest risk of a nuclear catastrophe since the Cuban missile crisis. With an erratic American president in control of the U.S. nuclear button, the Doomsday Clock stands at 2 minutes to midnight.
President Donald Trump has wondered why, if the U.S. has nuclear weapons, it would not use them and has warned Iran that the country would face, “CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED.”

The nuclear weapon states are modernizing their nearly 15,000 nuclear war heads. Eighteen hundred missiles, both Russian and U.S., are on launch-on-warning, threatening North American and Russian cities with weapons many times more devastating than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The disarmament promised by the nuclear weapon states is at a standstill. By accident, miscalculation, or design, nuclear annihilation looms.

One year ago, on July 7, 2017 at the United Nations, 122 countries took a bold, historic step when the delegates voted to adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty filled a gaping hole in international law, providing a comprehensive prohibition on the last weapons of mass destruction to be declared illegal; the only weapons that could not only end all of us, but deny future generations the very possibility of being born.

As a survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, I felt stunned and speechless with tears of joy welling in my eyes when the voting results were displayed at the UN Conference. In the din of thunderous applause, I understood the significance of the event.

I intuitively shared my euphoria with the spirits of those massacred indiscriminately in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 72 years before, to whom we made a vow that their deaths would not be in vain, that we would commit our lives to ensure that their suffering would not be repeated.

With great conviction I declared, “Nuclear weapons have always been immoral, now they are illegal! This is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons! Let us move forward together and change the world!”

Last December, I was elated and humbled to co-accept the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. The treaty combined with the Nobel Peace Prize have become a powerful force to further stigmatize nuclear weapons and their possession.

The treaty opened for signatures at the United Nations on Sept. 20, 2017 and the second signing ceremony will be opened this Sept. 26. We are now up to 59 signatories and 14 ratifications from diverse regions. When the 50th nation ratifies the treaty it will enter into force.

Regretfully, Canada has been shamefully absent in the worldwide effort to abolish nuclear weapons. At the behest of the Trump government, which directed its NATO allies to oppose a ban treaty, Canada boycotted the UN negotiations. When questioned in Parliament, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau replied that the UN treaty was “useless.”

Canadians have the right to know from their government whether their cities are targeted by nuclear weapons or how they would be affected by radiation fallout from nuclear explosions in the United States. What emergency measures do the federal, provincial and city governments have in place if nuclear weapons are used?

Toronto City Council asked its Board of Health to hold public hearings this April on the dangers of nuclear weapons and radiation fallout. After presentations by myself and dozens of other peace, faith and environmental organizations and individuals, the Board of Health unanimously called on Toronto City Council to request that the Canadian government sign the UN ban treaty.

City Council unanimously passed this motion and sent it to the prime minister, the minister of Foreign Affairs, and to the minister of Health, but none of them has responded. City councils across Canada may well want to hold similar public hearings and convey their concerns to the prime minister.

Canada must return to its legacy of global peace building and be on the right side of history by ratifying the UN Ban Treaty.

Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, will speak at the Hiroshima Nagasaki Commemoration at the Toronto City Hall Peace Garden on Monday, 6 August.

Another chance to step up: Canada and the Nuclear Ban Treaty

Posted on Laurélène Faye and M. V. Ramana

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | excerpt | 7 July 2018

… [The] widespread perception—that Canada and the United States agree on nuclear weapon issues—is partially true. But not always. Earlier this year, as part of a project on Canada’s position on the Ban Treaty, we conducted a careful review of how Canada has voted on United Nations resolutions dealing with nuclear weapons; Canada, it turns out, does not always march hand in hand with the United States when it comes to all things nuclear, and there have been significant divergences. Indeed, in the last 50 years, there have been only three years when Canada and the United States voted identically on all nuclear-related resolutions at the UN General Assembly …

Read the full article at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website.

War or Peace in Cyberspace: Whither International Cyber Security?

Posted on editor

Conference report | Balsillie School of International Affairs, Waterloo, Ontario | May 24, 2018

Executive Summary

Cyberspace and the Internet represent a unique human-created environment on which global society is increasingly dependent for its welfare. This space has experienced a major “militarization” in recent years with armed forces establishing cyber security units and many developing offensive cyber capabilities. Diplomatic efforts at developing agreed norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace have not kept pace with the growth of cyber security capabilities within national security establishments. The security “frame” imposed on discussions of international cyber policy has tended to marginalize human rights and humanitarian perspectives. The re-emergence of great power rivalry provides an opportunity for middle powers to exercise leadership in promoting cooperative security options for cyberspace. The wider stakeholder community including the private sector and civil society need to be better integrated into state-led discussions of international cyber security policy.

Read more

Il est urgent d’eliminer les armes nucleaires tactiques d’Europe !

Posted on Marc Finaud

Les États-Unis ne manifestent à présent, sous la présidence de Donal Trump, aucune intention de retirer leurs quelque 150 armes dites non stratégiques déployées sur le sol de cinq pays européens de l’OTAN ; ils prévoient même de consacrer 11 milliards de dollars à leur modernisation. Inutile militairement, cette modernisation menacerait la sécurité et la stabilité du continent européen en transformant de simples bombes à gravité à valeur essentiellement politique en armes précises et modulables qui aggraveraient le risque d’une guerre nucléaire en Europe. Pour remédier à l’obsolescence des armes tactiques actuelles, la solution n’est pas de les moderniser mais de les éliminer, en Europe comme en Russie. Or, l’indispensable dialogue avec la Russie sur ces armes fait cruellement défaut. En réponse au comportement de Moscou jugé agressif en Ukraine et à ses pressions sur les pays baltes, l’OTAN s’est contenté, dans le communiqué de Varsovie de 2016, de rappeler que « la posture de dissuasion nucléaire de l’OTAN repose (…), en partie, sur les armes nucléaires des États Unis déployées à l’avant en Europe, ainsi que sur les capacités et l’infrastructure mise à disposition par les Alliés concernés. »

Pourtant, l’objectif de l’OTAN, affiché dans son Concept stratégique de 2010 était plus ambitieux : « tenter d’obtenir de la Russie qu’elle accepte d’accroître la transparence sur ses armes nucléaires en Europe et de les redéployer à distance du territoire des pays membres de l’OTAN. Toute nouvelle mesure devra tenir compte de la disparité entre les stocks d’armes nucléaires de courte portée, plus importants du côté russe. »

Aujourd’hui, la Russie procède à de la gesticulation et de l’intimidation en modernisant un centre de stockage qui pourrait abriter des missiles à têtes nucléaires à Kaliningrad, à quelques dizaines de kilomètres de la Pologne, Etat membre de l’OTAN. De son côté, l’administration Trump a pris prétexte des évolutions de l’arsenal russe pour préconiser, dans la Nuclear Posture Review de février 2018, l’introduction de nouvelles armes nucléaires à « faible puissance » dans la panoplie des Etats-Unis.

Où l’escalade peut-elle conduire ? N’est-il pas temps de relancer une négociation qui permettrait d’éliminer un échelon jugé dangereux dans le prétendu équilibre de la terreur ? En effet, croire que le maintien d’armes nucléaires « tactiques » dans les pays européens garantira leur sécurité est illusoire : les pays qui les accueillent deviennent des cibles potentielles ; l’emploi de ces armes déclencherait forcément une riposte « stratégique » et la catastrophe ne pourrait être empêchée.

Le sommet de l’OTAN des 11 et 12 juillet 2018 offre une occasion unique pour les membres européens de l’Alliance de reprendre l’initiative et d’exiger des Américains une négociation qui devrait déboucher sur le retrait des armes tant américaines que russes du sol européen. Se contenter d’attendre que la Russie « crée les conditions du désarmement » n’est plus une option. Si la Russie exige de mettre sur la table non seulement les armes non stratégiques mais aussi les armes stratégiques déployées et non déployées, la défense anti-missiles et les armes conventionnelles, cela offrira d’autant plus d’opportunités pour des compromis vers une réduction du risque nucléaire dans l’intérêt de tous.

Encadré : Les arsenaux nucléaires tactiques

(Source: Federation of American Scientists et Arms Control Association) –>

Russie

Sur les 6.850 armes nucléaires possédées par la Russie, les estimations de son arsenal non-stratégique varient entre 1.830 et 6.000, aucun chiffre officiel n’étant fourni. A la différence des armes dites stratégiques, ces armes ne sont pas couvertes par le Traité New START ni par le Traité FNI de 1987 sur les missiles à portée moyenne et intermédiaire, mais par les Initiatives nucléaires présidentielles (PNI) de 1991 et 1992, qui ont abouti à l’élimination de milliers d’armes tactiques. La plupart de ces armes, aujourd’hui réparties entre l’armée de l’air et la marine, sont déclarées comme non déployées, c’est-à-dire stockées centralement, ce qui leur assure un niveau opérationnel relativement bas. La position diplomatique de la Russie consiste à n’accepter de négocier sur ses armes non stratégiques qu’une fois les armes américaines équivalentes rapatriées sur le sol américain.

Etats-Unis

Au sein d’un stock officiel de 6.450 armes nucléaires, les Etats-Unis possèdent un arsenal d’environ 500 armes non stratégiques dont 150 déployées en Europe sur le sol de cinq pays membres de l’OTAN (Allemagne, Belgique, Italie, Pays-Bas, Turquie). Les actuelles bombes à gravitation B61 sont en cours de modernisation (pour un coût de 11 milliards de dollars). Leur puissance peut varier entre 0,3 et 360 kilotonnes (soit 24 fois la bombe d’Hiroshima).

It is urgent to eliminate tactical nuclear weapons in Europe

Posted on Marc Finaud
From: Marc Finaud
Sent: June 27, 2018 5:30 AM
To: Marc Finaud
Subject: Elimination of Nuclear Tactical Weapons from Europe

Dear Colleagues / Chers Collègues

I am circulating the appeal below (in English and French), initiated by members of the French Nuclear Disarmament Movement (IDN), for a negotiation on the elimination of all nuclear ‘tactical’ weapons between NATO and Russia because of the danger they pose to the security and stability of Europe. This does not prejudge anyone’s position on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of nuclear deterrence or the need for any other measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war, but we strongly believe that the opportunity of the upcoming NATO Summit (11-12 July 2018) should not be missed.

If you agree with us, please let me know whether we can add your name to the list of supporters of the appeal, and whether you wish to do this on an individual basis or on behalf of your organization.

Anticipated thanks and best regards,

Marc Finaud
Bureau Member
Initiatives pour le Désarmement nucléaire

IT IS URGENT TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR TACTICAL WEAPONS IN EUROPE!

The United States under the Trump administration is not showing any sign that it is willing to withdraw its 150 so-called non-strategic nuclear weapons deployed on the territory of five NATO European nations. It is even planning to dedicate $11 billion to their modernization. Such a move is not only militarily senseless but it would threaten the security and stability of the European continent by transforming gravity bombs with a mainly political value into precision-guided weapons with variable yield which would aggravate the risk of nuclear war in Europe. To overcome the current obsolescence of the existing tactical nuclear weapons, the best solution is not to modernize them but to eliminate them, in Europe and in Russia. But the necessary dialogue with Russia on such weapons is badly needed. As a response to Moscow’s behaviour deemed aggressive in Ukraine and its pressure on the Baltic states, NATO, in the 2016 Warsaw communiqué, merely recalled that “NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies, in part, on United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and on capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned”.

Read more

Good News Service #57: June 2018

Posted on Murray Thomson
  1. Peace activist Ecuador Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa elected President of the UN General Assembly
  2. AVAAZ obtains a total ban on pesticides that kill bees in all 28 countries of Europe
  3. A Senior’s Version of Facebook: Is this you?
  4. In this grim time for journalists, a breakthrough in South Sudan
  5. Despite the chaos in Washington writers find plenty of “Better Angels” alive and well in Middle America
  6. Scandinavians reach their targets for Renewable Energy ahead of schedule
  7. Citizens walk for peace in Afghanistan
  8. Cease-fire in Afghanistan for Eid
  9. Afghan Peace Volunteers and schools for street kids

Download the full issue here (docx)

EN / FR