|
First Committee Monitor
Preview Edition
Click here for the PDF
Version, or
email the Project
Associate to subscribe to the Monitor
In this edition:
- Editorial: Opportunities for the
2008 UNGA First Committee
- News: International disarmament expert
Henrik Salander named to head Middle Powers Initiative
- Reflections on the UNGA General Debate
- Report on the ministerial meeting of the
CTBT
- The future of cluster munitions
- Uranium Weapons—Controlling Toxic
Remnants of War
Editorial:
Opportunities for the 2008 UNGA First Committee
Ray Acheson | Reaching
Critical Will
As we begin the 63rd session of the United Nations General
Assembly, we should reflect on our current challenges and
potential future successes. We cannot allow our frustration
with past failures to impede our progress. The challenges
we face present delegates, UN staff, and civil society with
another opportunity to press for a breakthrough in disarmament
at this year’s First Committee.
Nuclear Weapons
In nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, another year
has passed without substantial, positive developments:
- The nine states that possess nuclear explosive devices
continue to do so.
- North Korea recently
removed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals
and banned inspectors from its weapons-related plutonium
reprocessing plant.
- The IAEA recently expressed
frustration with its investigation into allegations
that Iran had previously engaged in studies to build a nuclear
weapon. The IAEA noted, however, that Iran has not appeared
to use nuclear material in relation to these studies, nor
has it seemed to attempt to design or manufacture a nuclear
weapon. The Agency also continues to verify the non-diversion
of declared nuclear material in Iran.
- The International
Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
announced its Commissioners and gave a brief overview of
its intentions. Unfortunately, disarmament seems to be only
a minor concern in the Commission’s agenda, relegated to
the sixth point of the six concerns that will guide its
work.
- On 6 September, the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group
unanimously
approved a exemption from its nuclear cooperation guidelines
for India, in a move that violates the spirit of the NPT
and undermines efforts to halt the spread of sensitive nuclear
materials, to prevent nuclear arms races, and to abolish
nuclear weapons.
Conventional Weapons
Our colleagues campaigning against conventional weapons have
seen more success:
- On 30 May, 111 states adopted a landmark draft treaty,
the Cluster
Munitions Convention, which will outlaw the use, production,
and sale of cluster munitions as well as require the destruction
of stockpiles within eight years. Participating states are
expected to sign the pact in Oslo in December.
- The Third
Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms met in July
to review the implementation of the UN Programme of Action
and the International Tracing Instrument. It voted to adopt
its final
report with 134 states in favour, none opposed, and
with Iran and Zimbabwe abstaining.
- The Group of Governmental Experts on the Arms Trade Treaty
released its report,
though it contains no conclusions on the feasibility, scope,
or parameters of a possible treaty. Instead, it recommends
that the UN hold “further consideration of efforts to address
the international trade” in conventional weapons.
Disarmament Machinery
Our current disarmament machinery continues to flounder:
The Way Forward
This session of the UNGA First Committee has an opportunity
to build consensus, bridge gaps, and support the development
international norms that can lead to effective disarmament
and non-proliferation. In his opening
statement on 16 September, General Assembly President
H.E. Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, M.M. of Nicaragua noted,
“The General Assembly has a clear mandate to consider principles
regarding disarmament and the regulation of armaments, as
well as to make recommendations. Each year this body adopts
over 50 resolutions and decisions on these issues. Yet something
is missing from our deliberations—namely, the effective implementation
of our decisions by constructive action.” He thus called upon
member states during this sixty-third session “to adopt a
results-based approach both to disarmament and to the regulation
of armaments, an approach that measures progress by deeds—and
not words or numbers of resolutions alone.” Reaching Critical
Will supports this call and urges all delegations to commit
themselves to actions that will increase real peace, security,
and justice. This preview edition of the First Committee Monitor
highlights just a few of the areas where concerted action
is necessary and possible, including the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, cluster munitions, and depleted uranium weapons.
News: International
disarmament expert Henrik Salander named to head Middle Powers
Initiative
Ambassador Henrik Salander, a Swedish diplomat and internationally-renowned
expert on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, has been
named the new Chairman of the Middle
Powers Initiative (MPI), succeeding the founding chairman
of MPI, former Senator Douglas Roche of Canada.
Sen. Roche, who is stepping down from the chairmanship at
age 80, made the announcement on behalf of MPI’s International
Steering Committee.
Ambassador Salander has had many pivotal roles in the international
debate over nuclear disarmament. He was instrumental as a
leading voice of the New Agenda Coalition from 2000, and chaired
the 2002 session of the NPT Preparatory Committee. From 2003
to 2006, he was the Secretary-General of the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Commission, chaired by Dr. Hans Blix.
Ambassador Salander was Sweden’s Ambassador to the
Geneva Conference on Disarmament (1999-2003) where he authored
the 2002 “five ambassadors” compromise proposal
that is still the basis for efforts there to start negotiations
on a fissile materials cut-off treaty and other treaties.
In making the announcement, Sen. Roche said, “Henrik
Salander is an outstanding diplomat with a long track record
of deep commitment to nuclear disarmament. His work on behalf
of the Government of Sweden and his highly-acclaimed work
for the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission have won him
international acclaim. He will lift up MPI as it goes into
its second decade at a critical moment in the life of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the regime as a whole.”
The Middle Powers Initiative was started in 1998 to encourage
middle-power states to press the nuclear weapons states to
fulfill their nuclear disarmament responsibilities. MPI’s
Article VI Forum has involved 30 states examining the legal,
political and technical requirements for a nuclear weapons-free
world.
Sen. Roche added: “MPI now has a proven track record,
especially with the Article VI Forum. Under Ambassador Salander,
it will have even greater impact as it increases its outreach
to diplomats, politicians and civil society. With this new
Chairman, the future of MPI is extremely promising.”
Ambassador Salander is currently Deputy Director-General in
the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Upon his retirement
from the Swedish civil service in January 2009, his first
official function as MPI Chairman will be the next Article
VI Forum in Berlin, January 29-30.
* * * * *
The Middle Powers Initiative is co-sponsored by eight international
non-governmental organizations: the Albert Schweitzer Institute;
the Global Security Institute; the International Association
of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms; the International Network
of Engineers and Scientists; the International Peace Bureau;
the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear
War; the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; and the Women’s
International League for Peace and Freedom.
Reflections
on the UNGA General Debate
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will
The United
Nations General Assembly held its general debate from
23–29 September 2008, at which heads of state, foreign
ministers, and other high-level representatives addressed
the international community with their concerns, priorities,
and opinions about a variety of topics. This year’s
statements were dominated by a myriad of crises—primarily
financial, food, and climate. Speakers aptly tied their references
to peace, security, and development to these crises—and
the “threat of terrorism”—though largely
at the expense of references to disarmament and non-proliferation,
which received less attention this year than any other year
in recent memory.1
However, some delegations did provide thoughtful reactions
to the crises that have overshadowed traditional security
issues this year. Rather than pursuing their security objectives
through the usual channels, these states focused on reform
and bigger-picture issues, calling for UN democratization
and criticizing military spending and misplaced social priorities.
In his opening statement, the President
of the General Assembly noted, “More than half the
world’s people languish in hunger and poverty while
at the same time more and more money is spent on weapons,
wars, luxuries and totally superfluous and unnecessary things.”
Many states lamented reemerging arms races, heightened militarism,
and continuing aggression. Cuba’s
delegation argued, “The wars of conquest, the aggression
and illegal occupation of countries, military intervention
and the bombing of innocent civilians, the unbridled arms
race, the pillage and usurping of the Third World’s
natural resources and the imperial offensive to crush the
resistance of the peoples who are defending their rights,
constitute the greatest and most serious threats to peace
and international security.” Others, including Armenia,
Cuba, and Indonesia, criticized excessive military expenditures.
Costa
Rica’s President noted, “On a planet where
one-sixth of the population lives on less than a dollar a
day, spending $1.2 trillion on arms and soldiers is an offense
and a symbol of irrationality, because the security of a satisfied
world is more certain that the security of an armed world.”
- 19 states referred to disarmament
- 19 states referred to non-proliferation
- 17 states referred to nuclear weapons
- 18 states referred to weapons of mass destruction
- 21 states referred to conventional weapons, including
small arms and light weapons, cluster munitions, and landmines
Weapons of mass destruction
Only eight delegations called for the abolition and/or reduction
of nuclear weapons, including Australia, India, Ireland, Jamaica,
Japan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, and
Sweden. However, ten states voiced support for nuclear weapon
free zones and/or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) free zones.
Nine of these states—all Arab—called for the establishment
of a WMD free zone in the Middle East, including Bahrain,
Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Palestine,
Syrian Arab Republic, and United Arab Emirates. Four delegations—Australia,
Czech Republic, Germany, and Kazakhstan—called on relevant
states to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Only India referred to the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
and the related waiver granted to India by the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, which very recently dominated international disarmament
and non-proliferation discussions. India
argued that the waiver, “will have a positive impact
on global energy security and on efforts to combat climate
change. This is a vindication of India’s impeccable
record on non-proliferation and to our longstanding commitment
to nuclear disarmament that is global, universal and non-discriminatory
in nature.”
24 delegations offered contrasting perspectives on how to
deal with the crises relating to Iran and North Korea’s
nuclear programmes. Many Western delegations called on Iran
to comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions,
including Australia, Austria, Hungary, and the United States.
Some simply expressed concern about the situation, including
the European Union, Germany, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, and
Sweden. Others, including Bahrain, Czech Republic, Jordan,
Kuwait, Slovakia, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, United Arab
Emirates, and Viet Nam, called for a peaceful solution to
the tensions in conformance with international law, including
the right of states to develop nuclear technology for peaceful
purposes and in coordination with the International Atomic
Energy Agency. Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea,
and Sweden expressed concern over recent developments with
North Korea’s nuclear programme. North Korea and Iran’s
delegations defended their respective actions.
Conventional weapons
A few delegations voiced support for existing processes in
controlling conventional arms. One delegation, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, called for bolder actions,
including the elimination of small arms and light weapons,
“which threaten to shoot holes in the fabric of our
democracy and compromise the values of our civilisation.”
Other delegations, including Austria, Bahamas, Bulgaria, Cambodia,
Congo, Ecuador, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Liberia, and Nigeria
expressed concern about small arms and/or emphasized the need
for the implementation of the UN
Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons to
combat their illicit trade, while Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Jamaica,
Liberia, and Trinidad and Tobago voiced their support for
an Arms Trade Treaty.
Only three delegations—Austria, Czech Republic, and
Ireland—voiced their support for the Cluster
Munitions Convention, while Lebanon called on “the
states concerned” to “meet their pledges to provide
the necessary sources of funding to complete the demining
program” of cluster munitions left behind by Israel
on Lebanese soil. Ireland expressed concern about the use
of cluster munitions in the recent conflict in South Ossetia.
Outer space and “missile defense”
Only Kazakhstan
and the Russian
Federation referenced outer space security, respectively
calling for the prevention of an arms race in outer space
and condemning its militarization. Iran and the Russian Federation
also criticized the development of anti-missile systems.
Multilateralism and UN reform
Many delegations spoke about the value of multilateralism
and the need for reforms within the UN system to democratize
and bring equilibrium to its services and functions. The overwhelming
number of states emphasized that multilateralism, as opposed
to unilateralism, is the only way the world will be able to
overcome the challenges it faces and to guarantee international
peace, security, development, and human rights. Several states
specifically highlighted the problems of unipolarity, such
as Eritrea,
which argued that “management by crisis” has become
a “new tool of policy promotion,” wherein “crises
are deliberately spawned and allowed to fester so that their
‘management’ would provide the United States with
the opportunity and latitude for control in a situation of
permanent instability.” Eritrea, like others, criticized
the UN for failing “to pursue an independent line and
act as a bulwark of robust multilateralism.”
Terrorism
The importance of multilateralism was often stressed in relation
to combatting terrorism. The majority of delegations that
spoke about terrorism called for a multilateral response rooted
in international law. Some, such as Ethiopia,
called for “dialogue among civilizations to build a
culture to enable us to create closer understanding among
nations” in order to prevent terrorism. Cuba’s
delegation criticized the “so-called war on terrorism
... [as] an excuse for aggression and military occupation,
for torture, arbitrary arrests and the denial of the right
of self-determination of peoples, for unfair blockades and
unilaterally imposed sanctions, for the imposition of political,
economic and social models that facilitate imperial domination,
in open disdain for history, cultures and the sovereign will
of the peoples.” The President of Cyprus
argued, “A response to the problem of international
terrorism will only be effective if our world becomes less
unjust. Without tackling hunger and poverty, without solving
regional disputes on the basis of international legitimacy
and without a more fair distribution of global wealth, peace
can not grow firm roots.”
Many, however, simply noted that the threat of terrorism
still plagues the world community and called for implementation
of related multilateral agreements and increased vigilance.
Achieving peace and justice
In his closing statement, the President
of the General Assembly noted that during the general
debate, “Those appealing for courage and compassion
have far outnumbered those who inspire fear and distrust.”
Several delegations highlighted justice, human rights, development,
economic equilibrium, international law, human security, disarmament
and arms control, dialogue, friendship, cooperation, reconciliation,
and tolerance as both preconditions and products of peace.
Qatar’s
delegation, which spoke primarily about peace throughout its
statement, argued, “The human experience that is full
of hopes and horrors reminds us all that achieving world peace
is a conscious positive act and not just wishful thinking....
We have all recognized through these long and exhausting experiences
that achieving peace is a positive act that means more than
just eliminating the threat of arms.” Qatar’s
Amir explained, “achieving peace requires establishing
and promoting economic and social justice among peoples, and
this is what constitutes positive peace.” Positive peace
is “the era of international law that ensures political
rights, and the era of development that provides parallel
and equal opportunities to one world that cannot head into
the future hindered by the injustices of politics or blinded
by the darkness of underdevelopment.” In his statement,
Costa
Rica’s President Óscar Arias Sánchez
emphasized, “We must guarantee peace and justice for
the past, peace and development for the present, peace and
nature for the future.... Forgiveness is based on memory,
not in concealment; and peace will be possible only through
memory.”
Reaching Critical Will and PeaceWomen,
the two main projects of the Women's International League
for Peace and Freedom, tracked all references to peace and
security at this year’s UNGA general debate, focusing
on disarmament and weapons. Two indeces, by country and by
topic, are available online at www.reachingcriticalwill.org.
Report on the
ministerial meeting of the CTBT
Jim Wurst | Middle
Powers Initiative
More than 40 foreign ministers of countries that have ratified
the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) issued a declaration
on 24 September calling on the states not party to the Treaty
to join so that the Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests can
enter into force. “The entry into force of the Treaty
is vital to the broader framework of multilateral disarmament
and non-proliferation efforts,” the statement read.
“Progress on this issue would also contribute to a positive
outcome of the 2010 Review Conference of the NPT.”
The CTBT has been signed by 180 states and ratified by 144.
This is usually more than enough for a treaty to become law,
but unlike other treaties, the CTBT requires the ratification
of 44 specific countries with major nuclear facilities. Of
those 44 in Annex II of the Treaty, all but nine—China,
Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan,
and the United States—have ratified the Treaty. The
ministerial meeting and its final declaration were designed
to encourage those states to bring the CTBT into force.
“We call upon all States to continue a moratorium on
nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions.
Voluntary adherence to such a moratorium is a welcome step,
but does not have the same permanent and legally binding effect
as the entry into force of the Treaty,” the declaration
said. “We reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty’s
basic obligations and call on all States to refrain from acts
which would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty pending
its entry into force.” The statement also welcomed the
progress being made in building up the verification and monitoring
system of the CTBT Organization (CTBTO).
Before issuing the declaration, the meeting heard from a panel
of foreign ministers, UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, former US Defense Secretary
Dr. William Perry, and UN
Messenger for Peace and actor/producer Michael Douglas.
Austrian
Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik said, “Testing
nuclear devices is a clear threat. Twenty years after the
end of the Cold War the language of threat is no longer the
language we want to speak.” The meeting was organized
by the Permanent Missions of Australia, Austria, Canada, Costa
Rica, Finland, Japan, and the Netherlands.
Ban said, “Some critics are saying it would be unrealistic
to expect the entry into force of the Treaty any time soon,
given the overall stalemate in the areas of disarmament and
non-proliferation. I flatly reject such a pessimistic view.
With the persistence and optimism that you have demonstrated
thus far, we can, and we shall, see the day when the Treaty
enters into force.”
The Secretary-General, who was the chairman of the preparatory
committee for the CTBTO in 1999, added, “Allow me once
again to urge all Governments that have not yet done so to
sign and ratify the Treaty without delay… As Depository
of the Treaty, I intend to send a letter to the nine countries
whose ratifications are required for the Treaty to enter into
force, urging them to do so as soon as possible.”
Echoing that theme, Douglas said a test ban “must not
be held up any longer by the intransigence of the few.
A global ban on testing will fulfill promises made to extend
the (NPT) and bring coherence and credibility to the nonproliferation
imperatives we all share.”
Perry said that during his tenure as defense secretary under
President Bill Clinton, he saw nuclear tensions drop and “at
the time I thought we were well on our way to dramatically
reducing the nuclear danger. However, he continued that since
that time “the efforts to reduce the nuclear danger
has stalled—and even reversed,” with the failure
of the US Senate to ratify the CTBT as one of the causes.
“Speaking to the assembled foreign ministers at this
UN forum, I feel it appropriate to ask the question: What
can the UN do to energized this nuclear disarmament process
that seems to be moribund?” He gave three answers: the
Secretary-General should use his “bully pulpit”
to awaken the world to the dangers; states should take “high
priority actions” including US ratification of the CTBT
under the new administration and encouraging the US and Russia
to extend the provisions of the START Treaty (which expires
in 2009); and working “to ensure that North Korea and
Iran do not build nuclear arsenals.”
This meeting is held every two years to encourage the Annex
II countries to ratify the treaty. The difference this year—held
exactly 12 years to the day when the Treaty was opened for
signing with President Clinton as the first signatory—was
the high-profile attendance by Perry and Douglas.
At a news conference after the ministerial meeting, Tibor
Toth, Executive Secretary of the CTBTO, stressed the civilian
opportunities offered by the Organization’s extensive
International Monitoring System. For the $1 billion cost of
the system, it is “the best and fastest early warning”
for tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and other natural disasters.
The future
of cluster munitions
Thomas Nash | Cluster
Munition Coalition
The adoption of the Convention
on Cluster Munitions by 107 states in Dublin on 30 May
was a momentous step forward for the protection of civilians,
for the rights of survivors and all victims, and for international
humanitarian law. This is only the seventh time in history
that an entire category of weapons has been prohibited outright.
The Cluster
Munition Coalition was proud to be an integral part of
the ‘Oslo Process’ to bring about this historic
new treaty and we will be working hard with governments to
ensure it is signed by as many states as possible in Oslo
on 3 December 2008 and ratified at the earliest possible date.
The treaty is important because it bans an entire class of
weaponry that has caused untold suffering. While too many
people have suffered already, the ban is all the more significant
because it requires the destruction of the millions and millions
of cluster bombs in stockpiles around the world. Half of the
world’s stockpilers adopted the treaty in Dublin and
it is likely that more will sign in Oslo and afterwards, leaving
only a small group of states clinging to this indiscriminate
and illegitimate weapon. In this way, the treaty is preventive,
a promising development, given that the international community
has too often waited until tragedy strikes before taking action.
The ban is also important because it puts the humanitarian
imperative first. Military arguments are outweighed by humanitarian
arguments. Survivors of cluster bombs and representatives
of affected states had as much influence in the negotiations
as defence officials from countries with stockpiles of the
weapon. The process to decide what would be banned started
from the precautionary approach that all cluster munitions
cause unacceptable harm and that all should be banned. In
the absence of any proof to the contrary by stockpiling states,
a comprehensive ban on cluster munitions was agreed to by
all. The strict obligations for clearance and stockpile destruction
mean the problem will be addressed now so that it can never
cause casualties in the future. Finally, the far reaching
obligations that states must promote and uphold, including
the rights of survivors and their families and communities,
will help ensure real action that will change people’s
lives for the better.
The support from the United Nations system for the new treaty
has been critical. UNDP has been a natural partner and has
supported governments throughout the various conferences of
the Oslo Process. The UN Secretary-General has provided vital
support for the Oslo Process at important moments of the negotiations
and welcomed the adoption of the treaty in Dublin. The Secretary-General
has also agreed to take on the role of depositary of the treaty,
as stipulated in Article 22. While some states, such as the
United States, Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel,
remain opposed to the new treaty, eventually we hope all UN
member states will sign it. In the meantime, we are convinced
that the stigmatisation of the weapon will prevent further
use, production, and transfer, much as the Mine
Ban Treaty has had an effect well beyond its formal members.
During the First Committee, we hope that governments will
take the opportunity to announce or reiterate their commitment
to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Oslo on 3 December.
We hope that states will use the opportunity to lobby others
to come to Oslo and sign the treaty. With the wealth of Oslo
Process experience amongst diplomats at the First Committee,
we also hope it will be a useful environment for diplomats
and civil society representatives to discuss plans for Oslo
and for the subsequent ratification campaign and the concrete
steps states should take to implement this new treaty.
On Tuesday, 21 October, states will have a chance to discuss
the new Convention on Cluster Munitions when Ambassador Daithi
O’Ceallaigh, Chair of the Dublin Diplomatic Conference,
will report to the First Committee on the conference and its
adoption of the new treaty. Ireland will also host a side
event at lunchtime that day aimed at encouraging signature
of the Convention in Oslo. In addition, the Irish government
will introduce a brief procedural resolution to the First
Committee to provide the UN Secretary-General with the appropriate
United Nations mandate, as referred to in Article 14.3, to
perform tasks assigned to him in the new treaty.Looking ahead
to the Oslo Conference, we are expecting this historic occasion
to be one of the most important political events of 2008.
It is a celebration of success but it will also be the beginning
of a new phase of implementation. We are hoping for announcements
of concrete national steps, including national ratification
to allow for swift entry into force of the treaty but also
of concrete plans for stockpile destruction, new initiatives
on victim assistance, new funding for clearance, and other
measures to turn the treaty’s text into reality.
Our goal is for 123 states to sign the Convention, which is
one more than signed the Mine Ban Treaty in Ottawa in 1997.
The more that sign in Oslo the stronger the signal will be
of the stigmatisation of this weapon. Our next goal after
Oslo will be to campaign for the 30 ratifications required
for entry into force to be deposited by 30 May 2009, one year
after the treaty’ was adopted. At the same time, we’ll
turn our attention to the detailed and hard work of implementation
and monitoring of the treaty, two elements that have been
crucial to the success of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty over the
past decade. We’ll also be preparing for the first Meeting
of States Parties, which must take place within one year of
the entry into force of the treaty and which will construct
the framework for the treaty’s implementation and monitoring
in the years ahead.
We hope that all participants in the First Committee this
year will draw inspiration from the energy and promise that
the Oslo Process provides for multilateral disarmament and
for the idea of disarmament as humanitarian action. States
have shown that they can “do disarmament” and
that they can have results. We hope this positive outlook
will spill over into other areas of disarmament work in dire
need of progress.
Uranium Weapons—Controlling
Toxic Remnants of War
Doug Weir | International
Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons
In December 2007, the General Assembly passed an historic
resolution highlighting health concerns over the use of depleted
uranium (DU) in ammunition and armour. The resolution, “Effects
of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted
uranium” (A/C.1/62/L.18/Rev.1),
passed by a landslide majority with only five votes against.
In the succeeding year, the profile of the DU issue has risen
considerably. In Italy the government agreed to the first
ever wide scale compensation package for soldiers affected
by Balkan Syndrome, where DU exposure is a suggested cause
of the illnesses. In February, the Finnish Minister of Foreign
Affairs acknowledged the need for a uranium weapons treaty,
while campaigners in Costa Rica and New Zealand pushed for
domestic bans on uranium weapons akin to that achieved by
Belgium in March 2007.
In May, 491 Members of the European Parliament—out
of a possible 521—voted in favour of a detailed and
far reaching DU resolution, “Global treaty to ban uranium
weapons” (P6_TA-PROV(2008)0233).
It was the fourth time the parliament had passed a DU resolution
and it was by far the most thorough, with requests for DU
studies and a halt to deployment in contaminated areas, alongside
the proposed launch of a fund to compensate civilians. While
the European Parliament has little political clout within
the European Union (EU), its members represent the democratic
will of half a billion people, so this should be seen for
what it is—a clear mandate for action among EU member
states.
Uranium weapons were first fielded in the 1991 Gulf War by
US and UK forces. Since then they have been used in the Balkans
and the 2003 invasion of Iraq; a combined total of more than
500 tonnes of uranium in all. There is some evidence to suggest
that they may also have been used in Afghanistan, although
this remains controversial—as does the allegation that
the classified “dense metal” found in some huge
US bunker-busting bombs is in fact DU.
While detailed epidemiological surveys of civilian populations
have yet to be undertaken, chiefly for reasons of security
and finance, reports from clinics and hospitals across Iraq
suggest that the rates of certain cancers, such as lymphoma,
leukaemia, and breast cancer are increasing. In addition,
the age at which patients are developing these illnesses appears
to be decreasing.
A wealth of laboratory studies suggests that the fine uranium
particles produced when these weapons burn can cause considerable
damage to cellular processes. This damage can be caused both
by uranium’s radioactivity and its chemical toxicity,
or a combination of the two. This in turn may express itself
by the formation of cancers or a range of other physical symptoms.
Furthermore, once the particles are released into the environment
there are few, if any, ways of removing them.
It is this last point that has led the International
Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) to argue that
the case against uranium weapons should be viewed through
the prism of the Precautionary Principle. The principle states
that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible
harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of
a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden
of proof falls on those who would advocate using DU, in this
case the US and UK governments. The UK in particular sees
the argument quite differently. It argues that the protection
of its troops overrides the protection of civilians, claiming
that its CHARM3 120mm ammunition is the best tank munition
available and that this consideration trumps all others—a
position seemingly at odds with the norms of international
humanitarian law.
The application of the Precautionary Principle at the supranational
level has several precedents. It formed the basis of the 1987
Montreal Protocol on protecting the ozone layer and appeared
in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,
while in the European Union, the principle was contained within
the Maastricht Treaty and it has been promoted by the European
Commission where it now informs food safety, technological
development, and consumer safety. The principle also guided
the Belgian Government’s decision to ban the use of
uranium weapons, as it should other EU member states that
claim to adhere to the same standards of EU environmental
law.
During the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, ICBUW would
like to see two key positions reached. The first is a voluntary
moratorium on the use of uranium in conventional weapons on
the part of all member states, until such time as research
into the effects of long-term DU exposure on civilian populations
is completed. This is in line with the Precautionary Principle
and mirrors the opinion of the European Parliament. The second
is the creation of a Group of Governmental Experts to assess
the wealth of new evidence suggesting that uranium dust poses
a serious threat to human health and the environment. This
group should welcome the input of NGOs active on the issue
and other independent specialists.
In many respects, it seems odd that it has taken this long
for concern over the battlefield use of radioactive heavy
metals to spill over into the halls of the United Nations.
DU aside, the normalisation of the use of all toxic weapons
must be challenged. From Geneva to Rio, there are legal precedents
with which to guide the hand of legislators; all that is lacking
is the political will.
And yet it seems that this is now changing. The Secretary
General’s report on uranium weapons, “Effects
of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted
uranium” (A/63/170)
contains several detailed criticisms of DU weapons, including
one by Serbia, a state that understands better than most the
threat that they pose.
The First Committee has it within its power not just to limit
the future use of depleted uranium but also to set a valuable
precedent when it comes to the use of other radioactive and
chemically toxic materials in warfare. It is now up to states
to grasp this opportunity.
777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008
|
