Active presence of Mayors at NPT Meeting
Address of the President to the Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2010 NPT Review Conference
“Needed: an over-arching approach to nuclear disarmament talks.” presented at the Mayors for Peace workshop on Launching Talks on Achieving a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World.
Also on the margin of the conference, Mayors for Peace held a workshop on promoting talks on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Mayor Akiba spoke on the advantages of taking an overarching approach to achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world and criticized as a poor alternative the step-by-step approach advocated by some states. (Text below.) Mr. Aaron Tovish, campaign manager of the 2020 Vision Campaign, spoke about prospects for a breakthrough in the Conference on Disarmament and how that could lead to negotiations on a framework agreement on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Mr. Alyn Ware of the International Alliance of Lawyer Against Nuclear Arms spoke about the growing coordination among members of the nuclear-weapon-free zones and its potential for promoting a nuclear-weapon-free world. There was lively discussion following each presentation.
On August 23, 1945, just two weeks after the atomic bombing of
Sixteen days ago, while running for a fourth term, this Mayor, my friend Iccho Itoh, was shot in the back by a yakuza gangster. Mayor Itoh loathed nuclear weapons so intensely that one of his dying thoughts might well have been regret over being robbed of the chance of living to see them eliminated. It pains me to think of it.
Mr. Chairman,
Last month we also lost our good friend and civil society leader, Janet Bloomfield. It is time for us all to contemplate how we can contribute to finishing the noble task to which they were so dedicated.
Mayors for Peace has set forth the vision of a world free from nuclear weapons by the year 2020. That is only thirteen years away now; God willing, most of us gathered here will be alive in 2020. How old will you be in 2020? How old will your children or grandchildren be in 2020? Will we be able to remove the nuclear cancer from our planet before it destroys us all? Can we give our planet the precious gift of health by 2020?
The prognosis is not encouraging. The unanimous finding of the International Court of Justice that all states are under an obligation to negotiate in good faith and bring to a conclusion measures leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects has been mocked by ten years of inaction in the Conference on Disarmament!
Three weeks ago I wrote to the Heads of Governments of all the members of the Conference on Disarmament. I challenged them to seize the opportunity created by this year’s Presidents of the CD. As you know, they have proposed a formula for going forward on several fronts simultaneously, including one on nuclear disarmament. But the diplomats in
Delegates of CD members,
I ask each one of you: before the CD reconvenes on the heels of this PrepCom, please take personal responsibility and whatever actions you can to persuade your head of government to do everything in his or her power to ensure that each of his or her counterparts unites around the ‘P6’ proposal. You may have to do something you have never done before. But to accomplish something that has never been done, the abolition of nuclear weapons, you will have to do many things that have never been done before.
Until every leader of a country that already supports the P6 proposal has spoken to every leader of a country that does not yet support the P6 proposal, no one should rest. Please do not tell me that your country is already doing what it can. Tell me what more your leader is planning to do in the next two weeks. Ten years of inaction can only be solved by ten days of hyperactivity!
If the Conference on Disarmament is still deadlocked at the end of this coming summer, the NGO community worldwide will be calling for a UNGA sub-committee on nuclear disarmament. That approach was set aside to give the six presidents of the 2006 CD sessions a chance to forge a new way forward in the CD. In 2007, we are witnessing the culmination of that process. This is, indeed, a moment of reckoning.
Let us be candid: the P6 proposal is only a baby step in the right direction. Only fissile material will be subject to negotiations. According to the 1995 NPT extension decision package, these talks are twelve years overdue. Even then, most of the nuclear-armed states insist that only production of new material should be dealt with. That is easy for them to say, as they sit on mountains of excess weapons-grade materials. A Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty will not impede their weapon procurement plans one iota.
All the nuclear-weapon states have nuclear-weapon acquisition programs meant to perpetuate their nuclear forces into the second half of this century. The most positive thing these states could do is to declare a multilateral moratorium on their nuclear weapons acquisition programs. Our friends, the students of the International Law Campaign, who are also among the youngest participants in this conference, point out quite rightly that, “Instead of each country childishly justifying its unilateral acquisition program because ‘everybody-else-is-doing-it’, all of them should take a ‘time out’.”
Five years of no nuclear weapon acquisition activity combined with nuclear disarmament talks beginning and evolving in
So, who among the nuclear-weapon states is ready to get this positive momentum going? This PrepCom would be the perfect place to step forward!
At the insistence of a few nuclear-weapon states, the P6 proposal calls only for substantive discussion, not negotiations on nuclear disarmament. I say let the substantive discussion begin, but it must quickly evolve into negotiations on a framework agreement that identifies all the measures that will be needed to achieve and maintain a nuclear-weapon-free world. Furthermore, it must specify when each measure is to become operative.
The thirteen practical steps of 2000 could serve as the starting point for such talks; the model nuclear weapons convention is another most valuable resource. Such an over-arching framework will give all parties confidence that their security concerns will have been addressed by the time the world is nuclear-weapon free. Even FMCT talks would benefit from being placed this larger context.
Mayor Itoh often said: Nuclear weapons and humanity cannot co-exist indefinitely. Mayors for Peace underscores this point by declaring that Cities Are Not Targets. Half of humanity lives in cities today; the only targets commensurate with the destructive power of nuclear weapons are cities. The mutual destruction of cities underpins the concept of deterrence. But I have yet to meet a city mayor who was consulted on this matter! The 1600 plus cities in Mayors for Peace unequivocally reject our role as hostages to this MADness. And we believe that we speak on behalf of all cities – on behalf of half of humanity – when we say this.
The US Conference of Mayors wrote to the Russian, Chinese, and US Governments about ending this mutual hostage taking. In my capacity as President of Mayors for Peace, I have written to the leaders of all nine nuclear-armed states demanding that they acknowledge the illegality of attacking cities or exposing cities to radioactive fallout. With the honorable exception of the
I ask the heads of delegation of the five nuclear-weapon states to consider whether it would be appropriate for them to answer this question: Have you ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in lethal proximity to cities? I am sure that anytime over the next eight days this gathering would listen with great interest to any answer you may provide. I would remind you that the ICJ underscored that even the threat of such a use is a crime against humanity.
Mr. Chairman, honorable delegates,
This afternoon, your proceeding will return to the regular exchange of views among diplomats. Please do not forget Ms. Bloomfield and Mayor Itoh; please do not forget our children and their children. Keep your eyes on the prize: a nuclear-weapon-free world!
Just over a year ago, I wrote to the Foreign Ministers all 120 countries where Mayors for Peace has members. In describing for them the task of achieving and maintaining a nuclear-weapon-free world, I made use of an analogy: planning and constructing a road. I would like to begin by exploring two aspects of that analogy that pertain to the time it may take to eliminate nuclear weapons. You see I am in a rush. In my view, each day the achievement of a nuclear-weapon-free world is delayed is a day that we tempt fate, imperiling our and our children’s future.
First, let’s look at planning ahead.
I think this analogy help to bring out how a literal ‘step-by-step’ approach to ‘progressive and systematic’ efforts is unacceptably narrow. It would be like building a highway starting at ‘A’ and lengthening it toward ‘B’ without even surveying the intervening land. Or, if the land has been surveyed, it could mean never sending construction teams ahead to begin work on stretches of road further ahead that are known to require special attention and perhaps even special equipment. A blind step-by-step approach that only can see as far as the next step will not only be unprepared for the more difficult steps, it may even find it has headed into a cul de sac which a bit of foresight could have easily avoided.
So I would like to suggest an approach to the time factor. Keeping in mind the two preceding points, we need to consider two questions. First, what is the minimum timeframe, from a technical perspective, required to physically eliminate all existing nuclear weapons and to render all weapon-grade fissile material unusable? Second, what other aspects for achieving and maintaining a nuclear-weapon-free world might require a comparable or even longer timeframe?
The answer to the first question would appear to be very encouraging. Mayors for Peace has named its international campaign the “2020 Vision Campaign” because there is no physical or economic impediment to eliminating the nuclear weapons and weapon-usable materials by 2020. According to SIPRI, in 2004 approximately 3000 nuclear warheads were permanently dismantled, primarily by the United States and Russia. Previous years have seen comparable rates. If these rates were sustained until all US and Russia nuclear weapons were dismantled, the job could be completed in about 2018. A similar situation prevails for weapon-grade fissile materials. Comparable information for some of the other nuclear-armed states is harder to come by, but it is likely to present a similar or even more favorable picture.
This back of the envelop calculation should be developed within a more detailed format; and where data is missing or ambiguous the nuclear-armed states should be asked to supply or to clarify the facts. There may well be ways to increase the rate of weapon dismantlement and materials down-grading within reasonable technical and economic limits.
These factors should be identified now so that the chances are maximized of resolving them before they become a drag on the elimination processes. For example, not only does each country have a responsibility to fully document its dismantlement activities, but as the disarmament process proceeds, it will become necessary to closely monitor this activity. The means and procedures for monitoring need to be designed so that they can be implemented without significantly slowing the rate of dismantlement.
For a few states, however, nuclear weapons have become a surrogate for conventional defenses. These countries must wean themselves from this dependency. They need to begin addressing this matter now. In some cases, external developments could facilitate this process by providing additional security or by reducing the perceived threats. The international community should begin exploration of these options without delay. Even if the political climate in a region is not currently conducive to implementing promising options, it is conceivable that they could be agreed upon on a conditional basis, so that when conditions have matured sufficiently they could be more rapidly implemented as part of the global disarmament process.
A good example of this is a nuclear-weapon- or mass-destruction-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. It is conceivable that countries in the region could work out all the measures and institutions of such a zone prior to the achievement of the broader conditions of peace in the region that would prove the confidence to actually implement the zone. Indeed, such a provisional result could have a positive influence on the peace process.
Mayors for Peace tries to be consistent in referring not only to achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world but also to maintaining it. When no nation has nuclear weapons, the non-proliferation regime becomes a non-acquisition regime freed of discrimination and double standards. To preserve this historic gain, the new regime must be robust.
The foregoing is just a sampling of the challenges that lie ahead. It is not necessary to have answers to all of them at the outset. At this stage, it is valuable simply to identify most of them and ask the right questions about them. If there is even a modicum of good faith among the nuclear-armed states, they will respond to these questions. Ideally they will get drawn into directly tackling the challenges as well. (More likely they will need a push!)
We must proceed from the assumption that a stable nuclear-weapon-free world is far and away the preferred objective of humanity and the states that represent it. That option must no longer be deferred. It must also be realized fully and well so that it does not end up being short lived. To that end, it must be addressed systematically and comprehensively, not leaving any important factor to the last minute. Our future requires absolutely our best effort.
The overarching approach to planning is not just a question of time efficiency. In the view of Mayors for Peace, it is fundamentally essential for achieving a nuclear-weapon free world. Without an overarching framework, progress in the field of nuclear disarmament will be regularly outstripped by adverse developments. Thirty-one years elapsed between the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and as we all know too well the latter remains in limbo. Negotiations on fissile materials for weapon purposes, anticipated in the1995 NPT extension package, have yet to begin, and in the meantime some are attempting to water down the mandate. At this rate, one might indeed have difficulty ‘foreseeing’ the total elimination of all nuclear arsenals.
The annual ‘ICJ’ resolution put forward by Malaysia at the UN General Assembly deserves the support of all countries. But too many abstain, or even vote against it on the pretext that ‘the time is not ripe’ for a comprehensive approach. On the contrary, the time is long overdue. There is one and only one reason for procrastination: a few of the nuclear-armed states are not serious about achieving nuclear disarmament at the earliest possible date. They are content to extend indefinitely their joint monopoly on nuclear weapons, even if it means fighting the occasional counter-proliferation war and prolonging exposure to the risk of terrorists obtaining a nuclear explosive device.
No one should lend credence to that attitude toward disarmament and nonproliferation. But that is exactly the effect of not standing up unequivocally for negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.
The membership of Mayors for Peace has now surpassed 1600 and is rising faster than ever. The great bulk of that number has joined since the commencement of our 2020 Vision Campaign. They are inspired by a hope that the world can turn decisively away from nuclear weapons. We are looking for countries prepared to make use of all available democratic means to launch negotiations on a framework agreement on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.
