UN Urged to Host World Summit on Nukes
by Thalif Deen for the Inter Press Service
June 2, 2006
UNITED NATIONS - An international commission on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has urged the 191-member U.N. General Assembly to convene a world summit on disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The proposed summit of world leaders should also discuss and decide on reforms to improve the efficiency of the U.N. disarmament machinery and make it more effective, says a report by the 14-member commission headed by Hans Blix of Sweden, a onetime head of the U.N.'s arms inspection team in Iraq. "After 50 years of (the U.S.-Soviet) cold war, we even see the risk of arms races involving new types of nuclear weapons, space weapons and missiles," says the study titled "Weapons of Terror." The Blix team, officially called the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, has advanced 60 concrete proposals on how the world could be freed of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
"So long as any state has such weapons -- especially nuclear arms -- others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain in any state's arsenal, there is a high risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. Any such use would be catastrophe," the study warns. The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, which has expressed strong reservations over nuclear disarmament, is also not likely to support any proposal for a world summit on disarmament. Asked whether such a proposal was practicable, John Burroughs, executive director of the New York-based Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy, told IPS: "For it to happen, I think it would require a new administration in Washington that was prepared to join and enlist the world in new efforts (at nuclear disarmament)."
But he pointed out that the Blix Commission's proposal usefully revives the idea for an international conference that was floated in a different form by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan earlier this decade. Despite the end of the cold war over a decade ago, the study says, stocks of WMD "remain extraordinarily and alarmingly high": some 27,000 in the case of nuclear weapons, of which about 12,000 are still actively deployed. "Weapons of mass destruction cannot be un-invented. But they can be outlawed, as biological and chemical weapons already have been, and their use made unthinkable," says the study. The commission has concluded that the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is not beyond the world's reach. But it still lacks the political will to do so.
The five declared nuclear powers -- who are also veto-wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- are the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China. At a second level are the world's three new nuclear powers, namely India, Pakistan and Israel. At a third level are two potential nuclear powers, Iran and North Korea, while two suspected WMD programmes -- in Iraq and Libya -- have been declared eliminated. "For too long now," said Burroughs, "Americans have been hearing the message that nuclear weapons are unacceptable in the hands of rogue states and terrorists." But the Blix report "rightly says that these catastrophic devices are dangerous in anyone's hands; that the problems of existing arsenals, potential spread, and potential acquisition by terrorists are all linked; and that the problems can be solved only by a comprehensive approach leading to elimination of all nuclear weapons."
Fundamentally, the solution embraced by the Blix Commission, "and long advocated by my organisation is that proliferation must be reversed where it began: in the United States," Burroughs added. In a statement released Thursday, Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation said the report is a ‘wake-up call’. “The Commission clearly holds the United States largely responsible for the present crisis. By walking away from tried and true arms control treaties, and by launching an illegal preventive war in the name of 'counter-proliferation', the U.S. has seriously undermined international law and endangered international security," Cabasso added.
One of the major recommendations of the commission is that all governments must accept the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that was agreed 10 years ago. The treaty states that those possessing nuclear weapons must reduce their arsenals and stop producing plutonium and highly enriched uranium for more nuclear weapons. At the international level, the Commission calls on the 15-member U.N. Security Council to make greater use of its potential to reduce and eliminate threats of weapons of mass destruction -- whether they are linked to existing arsenals, proliferation or terrorists. "It should take up for consideration any withdrawal from or breach of an obligation not to acquire weapons of mass destruction," says the study.
Asked if this proposal would fly -- in view of the fact that the Security Council also includes the world's five declared nuclear powers -- Burroughs told IPS: "This is extremely interesting and important." On the one hand, the Commission clearly sees the potential for the Security Council to build upon what it did in resolution 1540 on preventing non-state actors from acquiring and trafficking in WMD. On the other hand, he said, the Commission is aware that the Security Council lacks in accountability and legitimacy. "So their solution is for the Council to do more consultation and be more transparent, pending reform of the Council to make it more representative and lessen the dominance of the existing permanent members. I certainly support those steps. But I don't think that the world -- or the United States -- should give up on the approach of negotiating multilateral agreements of which all states can feel ownership," Burroughs added.
8 comments:
This should have been the #1 concern from the get-go. I remember Kerry talking about it during the debates. Maybe if there had been substantive talks concerning nuclear proliferation earlier, we wouldn't be having these problems with Iran and North Korea now.
I think that there is a lot more going on with the Iran situation than meets the eye. I'm not entirely convinced that they're looking to build their own nukes - though it does make a bloody good excuse for just about any action against them.
Funny though that Bush is talking about military action against a country that is suspected of maybe thinking about building nukes in the next 10 years or so - but insists that North Korea must be negotiated with because of the nukes it probably has already... and then rubber stamps the nukes held by India and Pakistan (and just plain ignores Israel's nukes).
Can anyone else say 'hypocritical'..?
I do however think that the world would be far safer without WMD than with it - because you know that sooner or later its going to be used.. (yes, I know WMD have already been used in a limited fashion).
Nukes are a valuable tool and they should not be outlawed. The deployment of just two bombs in Japan saved countless lives.
"Any such use would be catastrophe"
meh short term memories
Ah, the patriotic myth of the Japanese bombs saving lives. This is an embarrassing and discredited myth. It was Russia's entry into the war after the bombing that caused Japan to surrender.
The million lives saved number was something that McGeorge Bundy admitted he pulled out of his ass.
Japan had been trying to surrender before the bombings but the U.S. didn't want Russia to share in the victory.
scott said: Nukes are a valuable tool and they should not be outlawed.
A 'tool' how exactly? Who should be allowed to have them? Who should decide who has them? When should they be used? What methods should be employed to stop some countries having them? So many questions...
As to the use of nukes on Japan...
The Hiroshima bomb was used as a test. The Nagasaki bomb was used the tell the Russians to back off.
Do you honestly think that the USA would sacrifice many thousands of lives in a land invasion of Japan when they had total air supremecy? When they could've reduced Japanese cities to dust from the air with conventional bombs & blockaded its ports from the sea? Would there have been any sane logic in sacrifing so many lives for nothing? I don't think so!
Japan had been trying to surrender before the bombings
Really? I'm not as keen on history as I'd like to be, but I've not heard this. I mean if they had been trying wouldn't they just have done it? It's not as though they weren't warned of the coming bombs by the US.
http://tinyurl.com/gyqzx
That was offered, and denied, in July. And Stalin was involved so I'm not exactly sure where you're getting that "the US didn't want the Russians in on it" from.
Plus if the Japanese were so ready to surrender why didn't they in the days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They only surrendered once they saw the US had more than one bomb, and were willing to use as many as possible to end WWII.
I've not heard what Bundy said about it, as I said I'm not as brilliant with history as I'd like to be. I got my thought from knowing the fact that the Japanese Army was completely unwilling to surrender. In fact, after Nagasaki, the Military tried to overthrow the emperor and launch a coup to STOP the Japanese unconditional surrender. Luckily this failed, however that illustrates how AGAINST peace the Japanese military was. They wanted to fight to the last man, and certainly made public such intentions over, and over, and over again.
The Nagasaki bomb was used the tell the Russians to back off.
Like I said, they could have surrendered after the first one.
Do you honestly think that the USA would sacrifice many thousands of lives in a land invasion of Japan when they had total air supremacy? When they could've reduced Japanese cities to dust from the air with conventional bombs & blockaded its ports from the sea? Would there have been any sane logic in sacrificing so many lives for nothing?
When I say the bombs saved countless lives, I'm not talking just of Americans; I'm talking about the Japanese, Chinese, and Russians as well. The Japanese developed germ warfare bombs and used them on EVERYONE they fought.
They even tried to develop the means of dropping Germ Warfare on American cities. I'm sure they would have been more than happy to have sent them to Russia and China as well.
A 'tool' how exactly? Who should be allowed to have them? Who should decide who has them? When should they be used? What methods should be employed to stop some countries having them? So many questions...
So many questions indeed. And important questions. However, just getting rid of them isn't exactly a solution. They'll always be around, outlawed or not. And if fascists like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are going to make them if the UN wants them or not, I'd rather civilized countries had them as well.
From The Hiroshima Myth -- "... We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that ‘On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimpson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’" It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimpson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz further points out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their Emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences. ... "
" ... Another important naval voice, the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that "The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war." In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war." It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was "It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime." ...
We could go on arguing what the intent of either side was. All of us are obviously too young to have any first-hand knowledge of it. Kinda ironic that you are arguing in favor of a Dem. president and us against. I am just trying to say that there is not the unanimity that you believe there was. There were many political and military people that did not agree with the decision and believed it was not necessary.
The point is that nuclear weapons are not safe in the hands of anyone. There have been some in this administration who have advocated the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive against Iran. You speak of "civilized" countries. Is the U.S. civilized? Is Israel? I would argue that developments of the last 5 years would indicate otherwise. And our sabre-rattling does the exact opposite of discouraging nuclear proliferation. Who we "allow" to have nuclear weapons is less about security and more about economics and religion.
dbackdad: I agree with a lot of what you say. The US allows its friends to have nukes (at least for the time being) while denying any potential enemies - either political or economic rather than military - access to them. That's "realpolitik" but often presented in hypocritical terms.
scott said: And if fascists like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are going to make them if the UN wants them or not, I'd rather civilized countries had them as well.
That's assuming firstly that Iran intends to have nukes and assumings that a country with nukes will never be attacked by another country with nukes. If that's the case I'm sure that there could be enough nukes around to give every country one each. Result: Instant World Peace!
What is having nuclear weapons protecting you against? Nuclear blackmail maybe? Do what we say or we'll nuke you...? Is it OK for nuclear powers to threaten non-nuclear powers with destruction? Will that discourage or encourage them to also acquire nukes? Will having a nuclear arsenal prevent a terrorist organisation smuggling a nuke into the USA and detonating it in one of your cities?
SO many unanswered questions.
Sure we can't 'uninvent' nuclear weapons. But we can work towards their elimination. The alternative is growing numbers of states with nukes and an increased chance of a nuclear exchange, to say nothing of the terrorist option. It's certainly not a world I'm looking forward to living in...
Post a Comment