Keynote Speech at the Opening Ceremony
28th Annual Plenary Meeting
18 April 2010
Hiroshima, Japan
By Malcolm Fraser, Honorary Chairman
Download the PDF
When President Obama won the presidential race in the
United States there were many worldwide who believed a new
era had begun. He expressed the hope for and belief in the
future which many yearned for.
His first year has been difficult in the United States and
abroad. An economic crisis struck in Europe and embraced
the world. Internationally, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
preoccupied the United States and the continual crisis
between Israel and Palestine proved to be as intractable
and difficult as ever.
There was some criticism when President Obama received the
Nobel Peace Prize. Some suggested it was premature and
that the Prize should be awarded for achievement and not
for hope. I do not agree with that view. International
politics have gone through such a dark time, that to be in
a world where hope prevails and where enlightenment
governs the United States is of enormous importance for
all of us. It is a change that justified the Nobel
Prize.
Let me deal briefly with some of the major issues.
The economic crisis sprang from two causes: continued
financial imbalances, the growth of debt in the United
States and in many European countries but, more
particularly, in the lack of prudential supervision of
financial structures which are so important for economic
stability. The non-bank financial sector in particular,
played a major role in creating the circumstances for
crisis. Globalisation was accompanied by increased freedom
for major corporations in all sectors. Too many believed
that corporations and banks would always behave
responsibly and that the market would correct imbalances
and prudential supervisions should be minimized. It was a
case of an excess of freedom that led to irresponsibility
and serious breakdown.
Earlier meetings of the InterAction Council, especially in
2008 and earlier years, have pointed to the extreme
dangers of an inadequately monitored and regulated
international financial system.
While one may argue about specific measures, major
countries responded to this crisis in the only way
possible. They returned to Keynesian economics to stop
total and worldwide collapse. A collapse that would have
seen unemployment reach 20-25%. This was a major domestic
challenge which President Obama met, as did other leaders
worldwide.
Unification of Europe proceeded with remarkable success.
The new Constitution was finally accepted. It is an
advance to see Europe united but to believe that 27
countries can develop a concerted defence or foreign
policy is naïve. I suspect it will be many years before
the European Union can develop a collaborative and
effective foreign policy. It is clear that foreign
policies of larger countries will continue to act
independently of the European Union.
Tensions arose between the new Europe and Russia,
significantly because of attempts to push Ukraine and
Georgia into membership of NATO. From afar, such moves
seem provocative on the part of the European Union. Ask
yourselves how the United States would respond if European
states sought to establish a defence alliance in the
western hemisphere with Mexico and Brazil. There has been
a pull back from that excess.
Relations between the United States and Russia have
advanced. Only a few weeks ago, both countries reached an
agreement for the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty
since 1991. The landmark treaty will include significant
reductions in both the number of deployed nuclear weapons
as well as the number of nuclear-delivery systems. This is
an important and vital first step that had to take place
if any progress is to be made on the abolition of nuclear
weapons – a prime objective of this meeting. President
Obama and President Medvedev both agreed that it is
important to work for a world free of nuclear weapons. We
must not lose the opportunity that creates. I will come to
that later in the speech.
It is to be hoped that this United States/Russian
agreement will lead to further strategic cooperation
between these two powers.
International terrorism remains a continuing threat in
many countries and absorbs massive resources in seeking to
protect civilian communities. We should have learnt that
terrorism will not be overcome by military arms alone.
Other policies are critical.
When the Normans first invaded England in the 11th
century, they killed everyone in the first villages they
came across. They wanted a compliant countryside. Those
terrorist acts achieved it.
While terrorism often appears mindless, barbaric and
inhumane to people worldwide, there are reasons for
terrorism and, unless those reasons are understood,
overcoming today's terrorism will be unlikely. It would be
difficult if not impossible to change the mind of
religious fundamentalists but it should be possible to
pursue policies that make it very hard, if not impossible
for them to gain recruits for their cause.
We must seek to understand how other people look at
issues. The Coalition of the Willing's invasion of Iraq
made recruiting for Al Qaeda so much easier. The West is
seen to be imposing its idea of government on another
country. In the conduct of that war, many civilians have
been killed and the West has not been immune from its own
barbarities.
The Iraq Inquiry in the United Kingdom is giving a wider
audience an insight into the motivations of the British
Government and of its Prime Minister in particular. The
principles alleged to be followed in the lead-up to that
war were ones that cannot lead and will not lead to
international peace. It clearly usurped the authority of
the United Nations. Intelligence was wrong, inaccurate
and, in many cases, known to be false.
The idea that Saddam Hussein could have weapons of mass
destruction released over London within 45 minutes was
always a total absurdity. At the time he did not have the
weapons. If there was any doubt about that, there was no
doubt that intelligence services knew he did not have the
missile capability to reach any major city in Europe. The
lie was left hanging to justify war.
If people in the west want to establish a world governed
by law, major countries are going to have to learn to live
by international rules. This is one of the greatest
challenges in front of us. General rules are made but then
the great and the powerful are prepared to break them if
they believe it to be in their national interest. Great
powers have been prepared to allow those they regarded as
their friends also to break the rules. There will be no
effective law and no lasting peace unless the great and
powerful are prepared to accept international law,
properly made.
While the end gain in Iraq may now be discernible, the
shape of that end is still problematic. The Coalition is
virtually committed to withdrawal but the outcome could be
heightened tension, greater terrorist incidents and
breakdown between the different religious factions.
Afghanistan and Pakistan present the West and, because she
is the undisputed world leader, the United States, with
agonising choices.
Pakistan itself is an insecure country where democracy has
repeatedly been interrupted by military intervention.
Internal stability is fragile. The war in Afghanistan has
had adverse consequences for Pakistan. Those involved in
Afghanistan need to be careful the Taliban influence does
not grow in Pakistan, a country with a ready-made nuclear
arsenal. Further instability in Pakistan would be much
more serious for regional peace than anything that has so
far occurred in Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan does not proceed well. The decision
to place a larger number of troops in Afghanistan was
clearly one undertaken with great difficulty. I suspect it
was the only option available to President Obama, having
regard to domestic and international political realities.
But the statements of generals in charge of operation in
Afghanistan remind me too sharply of the statements of
generals over Vietnam who also said “We need a change of
strategy, we need more troops and we will guarantee
victory.”
If there can be negotiations with the Taliban, if they can
be weened from Al Qaeda and accept a role in rebuilding
Afghanistan, the way to end the war may unfold. From all
reports sporadic talks have taken place pointing to that
outcome but if 543,482( April 1968 peak) American troops
backed by 1,500,000 South Vietnamese troops could not win
in Vietnam, can 137,000 foreign troops succeed in
Afghanistan. Certainly military technology has advanced
massively but the disparity between Vietcong and official
forces was at that time believed to be great and
overwhelming. The technological gap is not a new
advantage.
The lesson from Afghanistan may finally be that a western
led army is unable to impose a government or a form of
government on a country whose traditions, whose people,
whose history and culture is so vastly different. Every
time a civilian is killed as part of collateral damage,
that civilian has relatives and friends who become enemies
of the occupation forces. It is worth remembering that
over many centuries, occupying forces have never gained
dominance over Afghanistan.
While there is no question concerning the legality of the
operations in Afghanistan, in contrast to Iraq, the wisdom
of conducting full-scale military operations is very much
in doubt.
The current phase of international terrorism is influenced
by and, on some interpretations, has its origins in the
problems between Israel and Palestine. Talks leading to a
two-state solution have made no progress. Reviving talks
between Israel and the Fattah government on the West Bank
with President Mahmoud Abbas, has not been possible.
There are two very obvious reasons for failure. The
continued expansion of settlements on the West Bank and
East Jerusalem make negotiation of a two-state solution
virtually impossible. Clearly Palestinians would accept
the 1967 boundaries but Israel will not. Many countries
have supported United Nations resolutions opposing any
expansion of Israeli settlements but when it comes to
doing something about it, they are silent. President Abbas
has now said he will not enter talks unless there is an
absolute freeze on all expansion activity. He has merit in
that position but Israel will not abide it and offers only
a partial restriction.
President Obama has tried more than any previous American
President to prevent the expansion of settlements and to
get movement on this issue. It seems he has been left to
carry that burden alone and many countries that could help
to influence Israel have been silent, certainly they
haven't entered the public lists to add their weight to
that of President Obama. It is time they did and they
should not be deterred by interest groups in their own
countries.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's own actions cast doubt on his
willingness to pursue a two-state solution. He would
certainly want a state possessing less than full-state
rights. How could negotiations be possible with an Israeli
government holding such an attitude?
More recent actions of the Israeli government concerning
the expansion of settlements in east Jerusalem make it all
the more important for those countries which can help to
influence the outcome to enter the list. Indeed, the way
the latest expansion of settlements has been handled by
Israel, leads one legitimately to draw a conclusion that
there are many people in Israel who still do not accept a
2-state solution and who believe that if the current
situation persists, they can, de facto, take more and more
of that which would be regarded as Palestinian land.
But another issue which has prevented progress is the
division between the Palestinians themselves, a division
which they must overcome. Many blame Hamas for its
policies and its non-recognition of Israel but too many
have forgotten that Hamas won a legitimate election.
Instead of sitting down and talking with Hamas leaders,
Western countries sought to isolate Hamas and refused even
to talk with them. It seems there has been a coalition of
some countries in the West, President Abbas and Israel all
combining to seek to destroy Hamas for their separate and
differing reasons. Such policies have clearly failed and,
in addition to the settlement issue in the West Bank and
in East Jerusalem, have been sufficient to prevent any
progress towards a two-state solution. There is no reason
to believe that Hamas' support on the ground has been
significantly diminished by these policies. The West
should understand that it cannot promote a democratic
process as it did in Palestine and then deny the outcome
of that process, which is precisely what it did. The West
appeared to support democracy only if it gave the solution
the West wanted. That is not democracy.
In too many parts of what would be a Palestinian state,
Fattah has been regarded as corrupt and self-serving. That
has not changed. Hamas has been closer to the people and,
when it was tested, had significant electoral support.
While Hamas' non-recognition of Israel is unacceptable to
most countries, the purpose of diplomacy should have been
to get a commitment from Hamas that on the day that
inviolate boundaries of a Palestinian state are accepted,
they will then fully recognise the State of Israel. The
two would march together. When Palestinians see the
boundaries of a possible Palestinian state diminishing
week by week through direct Israeli action, is it any
wonder that one Palestinian faction holds out against
recognition of Israel?
These issues need to be open to debate without leading to
charges of anti-Semitism. The Holocaust was too long ago
and, while the world must make sure that such horrific
events can never happen again and while its impact on the
Jewish people will prevail maybe for all generations, the
fact that the horror of the Holocaust occurred should no
longer be used to stifle debate internationally on issues
that are hotly debated within Israel itself.
In this area, countries like my own, like major countries
in Europe, have abdicated responsibility and policies of
even handedness between Israel and Palestine. Until they
again join in working for a just peace, this fundamental
cause of modern terrorism will remain as an abscess on the
body politic.
Speaking from Japan, one must also be in particular
concerned by problems in the Korean peninsula. How much of
the attitudes of North Korea is a legacy of the Cold War,
how much of it is a response to earlier US threats
concerning regime change? Threatening regime change is not
a good way to achieve agreement or to lead to peace. In
such circumstances, governments will do what they believe
will best protect their own interests. It would not be
surprising if that question alone was enough to cause
North Korea to seek nuclear weapons.
The search for a fully diplomatic solution to the problems
on the peninsula are clearly of enormous concern to Japan
and to the region. While the Group of Six needs to be very
much involved, it may well be time for direct talks
between Korea and the United States.
These issues are all part of the international mosaic and
they are of enormous importance and ones which the United
States administration, in cooperation now with the rest of
the world, must deal with.
There are other major problems which I can only mention in
passing: the question of poverty, political instability
and suppression in many parts of Africa, together with
political instability in South America and the major
tragedy in Haiti. I recognise, however, to make
substantive remarks on all of these issues would test your
patience too far.
In today's world there are two great existential
challenges looming over all others. Firstly, the question
of climate change. Whatever happened in Copenhagen is far
short of what is required. Too many countries are refusing
to pay any price for changes that must be consummated if
the world environment is to be safeguarded. The other
great challenge concerns nuclear weapons and it is this
subject with which our meeting in Hiroshima is
particularly concerned.
It is 65 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed
with what by today's standards would be small ‘tactical'
nuclear weapons. Even though the global nuclear arsenal is
now about one third the size of its peak in 1986, yet this
still amounts to the explosive power of over 330,000
Hiroshima-size bombs. Just one Hiroshima-sized bomb
detonated over a modern highly populated city could cause
up to three quarters of a million immediate deaths,
radiation deaths in the hundreds of thousands, and
millions exposed to levels of radiation warranting
protective action such as evacuation.
The significance of this meeting being held in Hiroshima
is not lost on any of us. I hope very much that the
Council will make a very strong affirmation concerning the
need to reach a zero option for nuclear weapons at the
earliest possible opportunity. It won't happen in months
and maybe not in a decade but in twenty years we could
live in a world free of nuclear weapons. It can be done
without jeopardising any country's defence, without
placing any country at risk – and we, and the planet,
would be so much more secure.
The nuclear crisis in which we find ourselves is profound
and we cannot afford to be inattentive. Let us review some
of the key elements of this crisis:
First, nuclear materials, technology and expertise are
increasingly widespread and accessible. If one of the most
impoverished, isolated and technically backward countries,
North Korea, is able to develop nuclear weapons using
essentially 1950s technology, any government can.
Second, smuggling of fissile materials has been extensive
and for years the AQ Khan black market network, active in
over 30 countries, peddled centrifuges for enriching
uranium and Chinese designs for nuclear weapons suitable
for missiles, the latter fitting on a single CD. North
Korea is reported to have sold nuclear technology and
weapons know-how around the world, including to Syria and
Burma.
Third, nine countries have nuclear weapons; and nuclear
weapons programs have progressed to varying degrees in
several more before they were abandoned (such as Libya) or
destroyed (such as Iraq).
Fourth, more than 40 countries have the nuclear technology
to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months if
they so chose, by either enriching uranium further from
reactor to weapons grade, or extracting plutonium from
used nuclear reactor fuel.
Fifth, the non-proliferation regime is terribly inadequate
in terms of scope, mandate, application and resources. It
has repeatedly failed to prevent or detect nuclear weapons
programs, not only in the 3 states always outside the NPT,
but also in South Africa, Iraq, Libya and North Korea.
Sixth, as of 15 Dec 2009, of the 189 states party to the
Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, 22 still did not have
comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA in
force, and 95 did not have in force an Additional
Protocol, the strengthened provisions introduced in 1997
after the discovery of Iraq's well-advanced nuclear
weapons program.
Finally, quite apart from states, international terrorists
actively seek nuclear weapons, and could buy or steal
existing weapons or fissile material. It is the widespread
knowledge of nuclear technology, the ease with which that
knowledge can be obtained that make the current situation
so precarious.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the danger today is
even greater than during the Cold War because then,
nuclear technology was more limited, proliferation had not
proceeded so far, and the major players, as events have
proved, were determined to avoid nuclear conflict. The
knowledge, expertise and the weapons were in relatively
few hands. That has changed. More countries have nuclear
weapons, a greater number have potential to develop them.
The danger of world terrorism is real and the possibility
that a regional nuclear conflict or a terrorists organised
incident involving nuclear weapons may occur is greater
than ever before. The processes of proliferation and the
dangers of nuclear terrorism will grow. The current
non-proliferation regime has broken down and now the only
safe path for all of us is to work for and achieve the
zero option.
There are three ways in which countries like Japan, my
own, and other non nuclear-armed members of nuclear
alliances such as NATO can contribute to this objective.
First, by planning, in the near future, for security
arrangements in which nuclear weapons have no place.
Second, countries should be working together to define a
comprehensive treaty which would underpin, verify and
sustain the abolition of nuclear weapons. And third, the
safeguards and procedures to make sure that nuclear
materials cannot be diverted from civil to military use
need to be greatly strengthened and reinforced. All
fissile materials – whether designated as military or
civilian - must either be eliminated or brought under
international control.
Japan has recently made a significant step, by making
clear that its military relationship with the United
States should not stand in the way of progress towards a
world free of nuclear weapons. On the way to achieving
this goal, the government of Japan favours prohibiting the
use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-armed NPT
member states, with the sole purpose of nuclear weapons
being to deter their use by others. This is a welcome
first step and is to be applauded because all countries
have a role to play and a responsibility to help create a
nuclear weapons free world.
There has also been welcome realisation on the part of
many others that abolishing nuclear weapons is necessary,
urgent and feasible. In 2007 George Schultz, William
Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn helped create the
political space for the US President to embrace the goal
of abolition. Since then, support groups from a number of
countries, including Britain, France, Denmark, Poland,
Italy, Netherlands, Norway and Australia have reinforced
this momentum. In Japan there has also been considerable
support for the zero option. So far, however, there has
been little action and the gulf between rhetoric and
reality remains huge.
There are also contradictions between the statements of
many leaders and the official policy of their governments.
Gordon Brown commits repeatedly to work to “achieve a
world that is free from nuclear weapons”, while his
government's policy is still to build new submarines to
carry Trident nuclear missiles to 2050 and beyond. The
Australian Government has called for a roadmap ultimately
leading to the abolition of nuclear weapons and yet the
Defence White paper published last year still speaks of an
‘extended nuclear deterrence for decades hence.
United States leadership is vital if we are to achieve a
safer future. President Obama has overcome considerable
obstacles to change America's nuclear posture. He has
recognised that the greatest threat to global security is
now nuclear terrorism by extremists and nuclear
proliferation to an increasing number of states. He has
also accepted that American national security and
fulfilment of allied obligations can be increasingly
fulfilled by conventional military capabilities.
The President has announced that, for the first time,
preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is
top of America's nuclear agenda. 47 nations meeting in the
United States have taken steps to secure vulnerable
nuclear materials over the next four years. More
important, the United States has declared it will not use
or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against non nuclear
weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non
Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with that
Treaty.
He has also stated that the United States will not conduct
nuclear testing and will seek ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and that the United States
will not develop new nuclear warheads or pursue new
military capabilities in nuclear weapons.
Taken together, these are significant steps. They are a
remarkable change from America's earlier nuclear postures.
One would expect to see these changes reflected in the
direction of United States Defense spending over coming
years. His military budget for 2011 requested before these
decisions were taken, represents a staggering $708
billion. That includes 13.4% increase in funds for the
National Nuclear Security Agency. These figures indicate
the size of the task remaining before the United States
President.
It also underlines the need for governments around the
world, who believe in a nuclear weapons-free world, to do
what is within their power to increase the momentum
towards the zero option.
I am glad therefore to see that a motion supported by all
parties passed in the German Bundestag as recently as 26
March. That motion establishes objectives and sets out a
strategy. The Bundestag has urged a reduction in the role
of nuclear weapons in the NATO strategy and the promotion
of nuclear and conventional disarmament. This is an
example that should be followed by all states in alliance
with a nuclear power.
Perhaps the most important question before us is to find
effective ways of building momentum towards a treaty
regime that will work verifiably to dismantle nuclear
weapons and delivery systems, secure fissile materials,
implement effective global safeguards and monitoring, and
dismantle and clean up the vast radioactive and toxic
legacy of nuclear weapons production and testing?
On the one hand it is easy to be pessimistic. While
overall nuclear weapon numbers have declined from close to
70,000 in 1986 to close to 23,000 today, so bloated are
these arsenals that the danger to global health, security
and survival remains essentially undiminished. The risk of
use of nuclear weapons has not gone away since the end of
the Cold War; it has grown. Any use of nuclear weapons
would pose very real and unstoppable dangers of
escalation, including in unpredictable directions.
In addition, for the past 15 odd years, nuclear
disarmament has been stalled. For the first time, a major
nuclear arms control treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, was abandoned. The only new nuclear weapons
agreement over this period, the Moscow or SORT agreement,
is not verified, does not involve warhead dismantling, and
expires at the same time the reductions envisaged are due
to be implemented. The Conference on Disarmament in Geneva
has produced nothing since it negotiated the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996, which is yet to enter
into force; and nuclear tests continue in North Korea,
which has walked away from the NPT, with little
consequence.
On the other hand there is much that can be done and, in
the first instance, I return to an enduring theme, and
that is the equitable and consistent application of the
rule of law because double standards in relation to
nuclear weapons proliferation are breathtaking and fuel
the problem.
While Israel's substantial nuclear arsenal arouses
virtually no international sanction and they continue
refuse to allow the IAEA to inspect their facilities, the
issues and lack of transparency around Iran's nuclear
program continue to be antagonistic. At the same time many
states are scaling up ostensibly civilian nuclear programs
and this always entails the potential for
proliferation.
In 1974, India detonated a plutonium bomb, violating
agreements to use, only for peaceful purposes, nuclear
fuel supplied by the US in a heavy water reactor provided
by Canada. This led to the establishment of the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG), aiming to prevent such diversion in
the future. Yet in 2008 the 45 members of the NSG approved
a nuclear deal between the US and India which effectively
rewards India's initiation of the nuclear arms race in
South Asia and strikes a body blow at the already
crumbling NPT. The deal trashes a founding principle of
the NPT. The sharing of nuclear technology should be
limited to non-nuclear weapon states that have foresworn
nuclear weapons by joining the treaty. India has gained
access to nuclear technology and materials which is
arguably more generous than if it were a compliant member
of the NPT.
India's capacity to divert nuclear materials from civilian
to military purposes had been made much easier because it
can designate which facilities are civilian and subject to
safeguards. However, it has not committed to make
safeguards on civilian facilities or materials permanent
or unconditional. A number of power reactors will not,
therefore, be covered by safeguards. It is also worth
noting that India have made
- no binding nuclear disarmament commitments,
- has not committed to stop nuclear tests,
- has not signed or ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
- and it has not stopped production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium for weapons purposes.
India has not committed to full safeguards and as a
consequence of the arrangements with the United States and
subsequently also France and Russia, will clearly be able
to divert more of its own uranium to weapons purposes.
Not surprising is the response by Pakistan, which is now
building two new plutonium production reactors, and
expanding its capacity to produce highly enriched uranium.
When, after 13 years of paralysis, the Conference on
Disarmament finally agreed last year to begin negotiations
on a treaty limiting production of fissile materials,
Pakistan and China prevented any substantive work. In
January Pakistan ruled out joining such a treaty because
of nuclear disparity with India. The possibility that some
of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of
the Taliban is a real and urgent concern.
Establishing an open, transparent, effective
non-proliferation regime is an essential measure on the
road to zero nuclear weapons if we want the world to be a
safer place. These needs are reinforced by scientific
evidence from state of the art climate models which
indicate that even a limited regional war in South Asia,
for example, involving less than 1% of the weapons and
less than one half of 1% of the explosive power of the
world's current nuclear arsenal would kill tens of
millions immediately and cause severe climatic
consequences which would persist for a decade or more.
These would result in global starvation on a scale never
seen before.
There is no question that an inequitable, increasingly
population, resource and climate-stressed world is an ever
more dangerous place for nuclear weapons. Preventing any
use of such weapons and establishing an irreversible
process that will get us to, and keep us at zero are
imperative for the security of every current and future
person.
The question before us is how best to seize the current
opportunity to abolish nuclear weapons? How best to
establish a comprehensive, verifiable, irreversible,
universal process towards zero nuclear weapons, linking
all the interrelated aspects of disarmament and
non-proliferation into an integrated package; applying
consistent standards and binding rules for all?
The START and INF treaties have already shown that it is
feasible for nuclear weapons to be verifiably reduced and
classes of weapons to be eliminated. The experience of
other inhumane weapons which have been or are being
abolished – from dum dum bullets way back in 1899, through
biological and chemical weapons, to landmines and cluster
munitions most recently – has been that a comprehensive
treaty is required.
The joint steps taken by Japan and Australia to establish
a roadmap for the substantial reduction of nuclear weapons
are positive steps towards these objectives.
In October 2008 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon proposed
a five-point plan linking nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. He circulated a model nuclear weapons
convention to all UN members suggesting it offered a “good
point of departure” for achieving total nuclear
disarmament.
There can be no doubt that a comprehensive treaty
architecture will be needed to outlaw and eliminate
nuclear weapons and end production of fissile material
which could be used for weapons and to secure and where
possible eliminate existing stocks. We should all be
asking ourselves what we can do and what all governments
might do to advance this objective.
In just over 2 weeks the 5 yearly Review Conference of the
189 states party to the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
takes place in New York. This is a crucial meeting. If the
nuclear weapon states come to the conference having
delivered little further on disarmament, and agreement is
not reached on substantial disarmament and
non-proliferation measures, it can be expected that a
tipping point of escalating nuclear proliferation may be
crossed.
The Australian-Japanese sponsored International Commission
on Nuclear Proliferation and Disarmament has made useful
recommendations on a package of measures for the Review
Conference. The report and recommendations from the High
Level Expert Meeting a few days ago will provide more
detailed proposals for your consideration, but there are
some steps that can be clearly defined:
- There is a need for a comprehensive nuclear abolition treaty such as a nuclear weapons convention, as outlined by the UN Secretary General. The nuclear weapon states should agree and state that they would not be the first to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against each other, and that they would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons in any conflict with a non-nuclear weapon state. This may serve to reduce the imperative, as some states see it, to gain nuclear weapons;
- All nuclear weapons should be taken off high level alert, and not deployed outside the territory of possessor state;
- The nuclear weapon states should declare that they will not first design, develop, or produce new nuclear warheads or modify existing warheads to create new military capabilities, or second, increase their nuclear arsenals;
- In the recently signed New START Treaty, Russia and the United States have committed to modest but verifiable and binding reductions in deployed nuclear weapons. Both countries should be commended for this significant step. However, the momentum to nuclear disarmament should be further developed and we must hope that the next Treaty will cover all nuclear warheads, both tactical and strategic, as a significant step on the road to abolition.
There are many other steps that can and should be taken.
The upcoming Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
comes at a crucial time and I hope the work of this
Council, and its long-standing support for the abolition
of nuclear weapons – as well as the communiqué of this
particular conference, will provide further momentum to
that objective.
We stand at a historic moment in world affairs. We can
take steps which will contribute to security and to peace
and to the advancement of human kind, or we can abdicate
our responsibilities and allow the world to slip into
chaos.
We need to understand the challenge for humankind. For the
first time in this world we have the capacity to destroy
civilisation and the planet as we know it. This could come
first by continued argument and inaction over climate
change and refusal to recognise the role that our own
development has in that equation. Second, by a nuclear
conflict with most disastrous and terrible consequences.
It makes the challenge in front of today's leaders more
urgent and more important. President Obama has shown that
he understands this critical necessity. Where are other
leaders rallying to his support, either in his own country
or worldwide?
I remain an optimist, and am hopeful that peoples and
their governments around the world will respond to this
most urgent need.