vijay@aglo-sphere.com

During its nearly 60 years of existence UN through its work comprising more then two dozen organizations has some remarkable successes to its credit in peacekeeping operations. It has helped people rebuild countries from ruins of war. UN has maintained peace and order in such diverse places as Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique, Cyprus and Kashmir, over 30 years in difficult circumstances.

The primary function of United Nations and central part of its mandate for which it was established is to maintain International Peace and Security as is enshrined in its charter. It carries its functions through its various agencies i.e. UN peace keeping operations, office of Disarmament affairs, conference on Disarmament (CD), The International Atomic Agency (IAEA). These agencies have the responsibility of general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of International Peace and Security, including the principles governing disarmament treaties and regulation of armaments. Some of UN achievements have been the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968 (NPT), Anti-Personnel Landmine treaty 1997, the chemical weapons convention 1992, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 1996 and many multilateral and bilateral agreements including creation of nuclear weapon free zones. The IAEA plays a prominent role in peaceful uses of atomic energy and at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons by its International Inspectorate team and its verification measures.

The UN Disarmament machinery works in New York and Geneva through General Assembly First Committee, Disarmament commission, conference on Disarmament and Department for Disarmament all playing pivotal role in preparatory committee and review conferences of NPT. IAEA supervises peaceful uses of nuclear energy and controls spread of nuclear proliferation.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is the branch of Department for Disarmament Affairs and provides substantive support for the activities of the United Nations in the area of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological weapons), including the threat of use of WMD in terrorist acts, as well as missiles. The Branch follows closely all developments and trends with regard to WMD in all their aspects in order to keep the Secretary-General fully informed and to provide information to Member States and the international community. The Branch supports, and participates in, multilateral efforts to strengthen the international norm on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, in this connection, it cooperates with relevant intergovernmental organizations and specialized agencies of the United Nations system, in particular the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom).

The main players in the Arms control and Disarmament issues are Intergovernmental Organisations, the Diplomatic Disarmament community and Governmental Ministries. These work along NGO's and Civil society. At the time of Prep Com and review conference, there is intense activity of different types that is fringe meetings and research projects, along with the daily meetings of the Disarmament committee. They all try to influence the outcome of the NPT. On the subject of research, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) deserves a special mention. The Institutes activities transcend diverse perspectives: from global diplomacy to regional and local dimensions, and from the human security to global security.

However the recent exposure of proliferation in Pakistan, Lybia and Iran is a challenge for United Nations and the International Community who need to see that non nuclear states do not acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction by having access to enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. A complete transparency and accountability need to be maintained in the present frightening political climate for the progress in non-proliferation and disarmament of weapons of mass Destruction can take place which will minimise the risk of these weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

NPT is still the corner stone and the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of general and total disarmament by nuclear-weapons states. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. 188 states have joined the NPT, including the five Nuclear-Weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms or disarmament treaty. The NPT is essentially a nuclear disarmament treaty. Its central pillar, Article VI, obliges its signatories "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

Every five years the NPT states meet for a Review Conference. The next one will take place in May 2005. In the intervening years there are Preparatory Committee Meetings (PrepComs). The latest PrepCom was in Spring 2004.

Today, however, there is a sophisticated worldwide network that can deliver systems for producing material usable in weapons. The demand clearly exists: countries remain interested in the illicit acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. If we sit idly by, this trend will continue. Countries who perceive to be vulnerable can be expected to try to redress that vulnerability — and in some cases they will pursue clandestine weapons programmes. The supply network will grow, making it easier to acquire nuclear weapon expertise and materials. Eventually, inevitably, terrorists will gain access to such materials and technology, if not actual weapons. If the world does not change course, we risk self-destruction.

On the other hand, the EU could be a force for good as articulated by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who has voiced hope that a united Europe will offer new opportunities to strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and the European Union(EU).

In a statement released by his spokesman late Friday, the Secretary-General said the signing in Rome by leaders of EU countries marks a "major milestone."

"This important and positive step opens new horizons for the European Union in the twenty-first century and provides a unique opportunity to preserve and strengthen democracy, peace and prosperity," he said, expressing hope that the document will bolster UN-EU collaboration in fostering peace and development.

The first step is to tighten controls over the export of nuclear material, for lesson the risk of nuclear non proliferation. The current system relies on a gentleman's agreement that is not only non binding, but also limited in its membership: it does not include many countries with growing industrial capacity.

We must universalize the export control system, remove these loopholes, and enact binding, treaty-based controls — while preserving the rights of all states to peaceful nuclear technology. We should also criminalize the acts of people who seek to assist others in proliferation. In parallel, inspectors must be empowered. Much effort was recently expended — and rightly so in persuading Iran and Libya to give the International Atomic Energy Agency much broader rights of inspection. But the agency should have the right to conduct such inspections in all countries. Verification of Non Proliferation Treaty obligation requires more stringent measures, but to date, fewer than 20 per cent of the 191 United Nations members have approved a protocol allowing broader inspection rights. It should be in force far all countries. In addition, no country should be allowed to withdraw from the treaty. The treaty now allows any member to do so with three months' notice. Any nation invoking this escape clause is almost certainly a threat to international peace and security.

This provision of the treaty should be curtailed. At a minimum, withdrawal should prompt an automatic review by the United Nations Security Council. The international community must do a better job of controlling the risks of nuclear proliferation. Sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle — the production of new fuel, the processing of weapon-usable material, the disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste — would be less vulnerable to proliferation if brought under multinational control. Appropriate checks and balances could be used to preserve commercial competitiveness and assure a supply of nuclear material to legitimate would-be users. Towards this end, negotiations on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty must be revived. The treaty, which would put an end to the production of fissionable material for weapons, has been stalled in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva for nearly eight years. For the material that already exists, including in some countries of the former Soviet Union, security measures must be strengthened.

Of course, a fundamental part of the non proliferation bargain is the commitment of the five nuclear states recognized under the Non Proliferation Treaty — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States—to move towards disarmament. Recent agreements between Russia and the United States are commendable, but they should be verifiable and irreversible. A clear road map for nuclear disarmament should be established — starting with a major reduction in the 30,000 nuclear warheads still in existence, and bringing into force the long-awaited Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

If the global community is serious about bringing nuclear proliferation to a halt, these measures and others should be considered at the Non Proliferation Treaty review conference next year. We must also begin to address the root causes of insecurity. In areas of long-standing conflict like West Asia, South Asia and the 'Korean Peninsula, the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction — while never justified — can be expected as long as we fail to introduce alternatives that redress the security deficit. We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security — and indeed to continue to refine their .capacities and postulate plans for their use.

Similarly, we must abandon the traditional approach of defining security in terms of boundaries — city walls, border patrols, racial and religious groupings. The global community has become irreversibly interdependent, with the constant movement of people, ideas, goods and resources. In such a world, we must combat terrorism with an infectious security culture that crosses borders — an inclusive approach to security based on solidarity and the value of human life. In such a world, weapons of mass destruction have no place."

Responding to proliferation calamities in pre-Gulf War Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, and Pakistan. IAEA’s Dr. ElBaradei has proposed international control over enrichment and reprocessing facilities throughout the world several times. Nearly 60 years ago, the Acheson-Lilienthal report advanced the same proposal, on essentially the same grounds- that is, the acute difficulty, if not impossibility, of verifying national activities in enrichment and reprocessing.

Dr. ElBaradei did not give details of his ideas but they might entail a massive enterprise involving management, perhaps ownership, of all enrichment and reprocessing plants throughout the world. A program like this would take decades to agree on and carry out. The IAEA Director-General has also asked for an immediate freeze on worldwide production of fissile material for weapons and rapid commencement of the negotiations on this subject, dead-locked for six years at the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament.

With the negative revelations of the past year in North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and Libya, the nuclear nonproliferation regime may be nearing its breaking point. The proposal of Dr. ElBaradei to establish worldwide international control over enrichment and reprocessing plants, as well as the failure of the IAEA to detect nuclear cheating in pre-Gulf War Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Libya, providing depressing evidence of the inability of the NPT regime to control nuclear weapons developments. If an NPT collapse occurs, the result will be a proliferated world, with up to 40 weapon states and active trade in weapons to terrorists and criminals.

Libya’s announcement on December 19, 2003 of its decision to give up its WMD capability was a positive development, as was the resumption of the India-Pakistan political and nuclear dialogue. Negotiated settlement of the North Korean and Iranian issues is not excluded. The U.S. may decide to resume negotiation at the Conference of Disarmament of the treaty to cut off the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, thus opening the way to China’s desire to launch a discussion of measures to block the weaponisation of space. U.S. success in gaining agreement of the P-5 to its draft of a resolution prohibiting transfer of WMD means that the necessary enhancement of the Council’s role in enforcing nonproliferation is possible. But securing all these positive developments is improbable unless weapons states take decisive action to eliminate their own weapons.

As for administrative issues, the 2005 First Committee of the General Assembly will be more tightly managed in accordance with the S.G.’s recommendations on reform of U.N. procedures discussed in the 2004 sessions. Proposals on proliferation, Iraq, terrorism, and nuclear disarmament are likely to be major themes. Criticism of the United states, including pressure to disarm, avoid unilateralism, and to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is likely to increase in next year’s First Committee session. The S.C. will also discuss and/or take action on Iraq and WMD issues, Iran, and the U.S.-sponsored resolution prohibiting transfer of WMD to non-state actors or terrorists. If, despite many difficulties, settlements are reached on North Korea or Iran, the Council will almost certainly be called on to guarantee their fulfillment.

As this account has brought out, WMD proliferation has intensified and it is clear that the use of nuclear weapons is appreciably closer. The U.S. Administration, the U.N. Security Council and the international community know fairly well what they have to do to counter this trend. The result may very well be a race between their capacity to gather the determination to act and the launching of the first nuclear or dirty bomb.

Some interesting developments for Europe, especially with an increasing number of NATO member states voting in favour of the resolution of New Agenda Coalition. 

On October 28, the UN First Committee adopted a further 9 resolutions, the most controversial of which were L.22 sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), entitled "Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments" and L.23, from Japan, entitled "A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons", as well as Malaysia's resolution (L.39) calling for a nuclear weapon convention, which is titled "Follow up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons".

Changing tack from the omnibus resolutions of recent years (last year's, for example, contained 30 operative paragraphs), the New Agenda Resolution in 2004 is short and innocuously worded with the purpose of providing a constructive context and garnering maximum support in the run-up to the 2005 NPT Review Conference.  It recalls the unequivocal undertaking given by the New Weapons States (NWS) to eliminate nuclear weapons at the 2000 Review Conference, while also noting that the ultimate objective of the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control. In only 8 operative paragraphs, the resolution calls on all states to "fully comply with commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and not to act in any way that may be detrimental to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation or that may lead to a new nuclear arms race".

States were also called on to "accelerate the implementation" of the practical steps for nuclear disarmament agreed in 2000 and to resume fissban negotiations. The principles of irreversibility and transparency, as well as verification, were underlined as "imperative", and the resolution called for the CD to establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament. Although the NAC did not sponsor a separate resolution this year on non-strategic nuclear weapons, they called on the NWS "to take further steps to reduce their non-strategic nuclear arsenals and not to develop new types of nuclear weapons, in accordance with their commitment to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies."

Among other notable resolutions was Japan's traditional nuclear disarmament resolution supporting the NPT was long and detailed. It supported the agreements adopted in 2000 and described the 13 steps (but with some alterations, accounting for some of the abstentions). It was resoundingly adopted by 151 votes, with 2 opposed (India and the United States) and 16 abstentions (which included the NAC, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Iran, Bhutan, Malta, Cuba, Myanmar(Burma) and DPRK).  Once again, the principal reason for the US opposition to its ally's moderate, NPT-reinforcing resolution was Japan's call for early entry into force of the CTBT and for a verifiable fissile material ban.

The UN under the auspices of UNESCO, has designated 2001-2010, as a decade of of culture, peace and non-violence. The UN defines a culture of peace as "all the values, attitudes and forms of behaviour that reflects respect for life, for human dignity and for all human rights, the rejection of violence in all its forms, and commitment to the principles of freedom, justice, solidarity, tolerance, and understanding between people."

Tadatoshi Akiba, mayor of Hiroshima and president of the Mayors for Peace said:

"...To summarize, we demand here and now that, when the States Parties review the NPT in 2005, you take that opportunity to pass by majority vote, regardless of any nations that may oppose it, a call for the immediate de-alerting of all nuclear weapons, for unequivocal action toward dismantling and destroying all nuclear weapons in accordance with a clearly stipulated timetable, and for negotiations on a universal Nuclear Weapons Convention establishing a verifiable and irreversible regime for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. 'Impossible,' some will say. "The nuclear powers will never agree.'

"All of us in this room today, blessed with extremely high levels of prosperity and education, are duty-bound to educate the rest of the population in our countries about the nuclear danger. We must inform them and mobilize them for their own protection. It is our responsibility to launch a massive, grassroots campaign that will make it clear that the people of all nations will accept only leaders who undertake unequivocally to eliminate nuclear weapons.

"The military industrial complex is too powerful,' some will say. I have no illusions about what happens when the people seek to correct their rulers. It took a hundred years and a terribly bloody war to free the slaves in the US, then another century to free them from the terror of lynchings and the humiliation of segregation. It took 30 years for Gandhi to free India from British rule. It took 15 years to stop the Vietnam War. Bottom-up change takes time and great sacrifice, but, unfortunately, people of moral and spiritual vision must again take up the struggle. The abolition of nuclear weapons is no less important and no less just than the abolition of slavery. We are not just fighting a technology or a weapon.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, we are fighting nuclear weapons in our own minds. We are fighting the very idea that anyone could, for any reason, unleash a nuclear holocaust. We are fighting the idea that a small group of powerful men should have the capacity to launch Armageddon. We are fighting the idea that we should spend trillions of dollars on military overkill while billions of us live in dire, life-threatening poverty.

Our immediate target is nuclear weapons, but our long-term aim is a new world order. In this new world, no man is foolish enough to kill or be killed to defend his master's wealth or ego. We seek a world in which no man, woman or child goes to bed wondering whether he or she will live through the hunger, pestilence, or violence of the next day; a world in which we look around this room and see not murdering, thieving enemies against whom we have to defend ourselves but brothers and sisters on whom our own safety, security, survival and enjoyment depend.

You will soon be hearing about a new campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, supported by the World Conference of Mayors for Peace, which represents 555 cities and over 250 million people around the world, will work with anyone willing to help design, develop, and implement this campaign. Please join us. Please support the campaign in any way you can. Let us work together for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Let us ban nuclear weapons in 2005."

Thank you very much for listening.

VIJAY MEHTA MA

 Co- Chair World Disarmament Campaign                  TEL:             (+44) 207 377 2111
 Co Chairman Arms Reduction Coalition                   MOBILE:     07776 231 018  
 Vice Chairman: Action for United Nations Renewal     FAX:            (+44) 207 377 2999    
 Secretary: London CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament)         
 Editor: INLAP TIME (Institute for Law & Peace)
 Founder Member: Non Violent Action Monthly Magazine

PO BOX 4256, London, E1 2WP, United Kingdom

vijay@anglo-sphere.com