vijay@anglo-sphere.com

We are today faced on the world horizon - nuclear proliferation threats from North Korea to Iran, conflicts raging from Darfur to Congo in weak states in Africa. Furthermore, we wait to see how the situation in Iraq develops with the continuing fighting between the Iraqi’s and the occupying forces. If the security situation deteriorates more as it seems at present, the anarchy and chaos we witness in Iraq risk sliding into a full-blown civil war between the Sunni and Shia communities.

Against the backdrop of world wide violence and nuclear escalation, the need for disarmament is ever more urgent. Disarmament simply means halting the spread of arms, and eventually eliminating all weapons from small arms to nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). It also means absence of violence and wars, thus increasing the chances of peace, respect for human rights, poverty reduction, and better environmental protection. The ultimate aim of disarmament is to make citizens aware that global and human security cannot be obtained through military superiority. The reduction of arms is the way to bring the peace dividend which was promised after the Cold War.

A holistic approach towards peace and human security depend on a reallocation of the world's resources so that billions of people who never see more than $1 or $2 a day are not held hostage to unconscienable poverty. Peace and Human security depend on universal adherence to and respect for human rights, including economic, social, and cultural rights as well as civil and political.

World military spending in 2003 totaled $956 billion while the annual estimated cost required to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 stands at $40 billion-$70 billion, illustrating how governments are failing to address the most important issues of the global agenda. Thus limiting the chances of achieving the MDGs- agreed by heads of states at a UN summit in 2000, which was designed to reduce extreme poverty by 50 per cent by 2015.

According to the recent UN High-level report, the challenges facing the world today is not limited to international terrorism and the proliferation of WMDs- real though these threats certainly are. A much wider challenge includes the phenomena of weak states often leading to major regional instability and conflicts, and a whole range of issues which have not traditionally been considered as part of the peace and security nexus at all - poverty, environmental degradation, pandemic diseases and the spread of organised crime - to mention the most prominent.

The degradation of the environment and the decline in the quality of land has clearly either started or exasperated conflicts, especially, in parts of Africa. If the impact of global warning is not curbed, the future might hold an eruption of desperate all out wars for food, water and energy supplies (oil and gas).

This conclusion is reached not simply because in many parts of the world - in Africa, in Latin America - these so-called "soft" threats are often seen as even more menacing and imminent than the so-called "hard" threats of the narrower agenda, but also because we are all increasingly aware of the interconnections and overlap between the different categories of threat which rendered the whole "hard/soft" categorisation misleading and inadequate.

After all the greatest terrorist outrage in recent times was launched from a failed state, Afghanistan, and the greatest genocide in another, Rwanda. Organised crime has frequently undermined international efforts at post-conflict peace-building. Pandemic diseases like AIDS threaten the stability of many states, in Africa in particular. The correlation between poverty and insecurity leaps at you from the report. All these threats require a universal response if they have to be effectively solved. Only a broad, common agenda provides any hope of mustering such a universal response.

Since its foundation, the United Nations has made the goals of multilateral disarmament and arms limitation central issues in the maintenance of international peace and security- as is enshrined in its charter. Highest priority has been given to the reduction and eventual elimination of WMDs, which have posed the greatest threat to humankind.

The UN 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 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1968 (NPT), Anti-Personnel Landmine treaty 1997, the chemical weapons convention 1992, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 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 next major event on disarmament is the NPT Review Conference in May 2005. It takes place every five years, where the NPT states meet in New York. In the intervening years there are Preparatory Committee Meetings (PrepComs), although the last PrepCom, in 2004, yielded very little real progress towards the abolition of nuclear weapons.

The NPT entered into force, became international law, in 1970 and now all countries are members except four: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea (which has withdrawn).

The NPT was a deal between Nuclear Weapon States (NWS): China, France, UK, US and USSR (now Russia), and the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS). The NWS promised to carry out nuclear disarmament (under Article VI of the Treaty) but (unfortunately) allow the spread of so-called 'peaceful' nuclear energy and the NNWS promised to not develop and deploy nuclear weapons.

The NPT was indefinitely extended in 1995 on the promise of greater accountability by the NWS in particular, since they had clearly not carried out their part of the bargain. There is a four week Review Conference (RevCon) every five years, with three Preparatory Committees (PrepComs), each lasting two weeks, in between and nearly all states attend.

The NNWS have for the most part kept their side of the deal. However, of the non-member states India, Pakistan and Israel definitely possess nuclear weapons and North Korea may have one or two.

Due to strong lobbying from the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) of countries (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden) the 2000 RevCon Final Document was a positive outcome. The NWS made an unequivocal commitment to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals and agreed 13 steps to carry this out.

The NPT is the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Article VI of the Treaty 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".

Let us examine the threats facing the NPT and the steps we can take to address them.

First gap is the one created by states who are non-parties to the disarmament and non-proliferation treaties. For example India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are not signatories to the most important treaty, the NPT. In East Asia, North Korea is not a party to the CWC either, as well as Bhutan, Cambodia and Myanmar. Myanmar and Nepal are the only countries in East Asia that are not parties to the BWC. 

The second gap is the problem of states withdrawing from existing treaties like the NPT.  Those who crafted the Treaty’s withdrawal provisions must have thought they would never have to see them actually used.  But it has happened as in the case of North Korea.  The IAEA reported it to the Security Council but the Council has not taken any action on it.  Should it be left that way?  If the world does not show a firm way to deal with such a breakout, non-proliferation regimes will precipitously lose their credibility and may ignite cascading effects.

Third, there is the verification gap and gaining access to countries who are already signatories to a treaty but still remain reluctant to allow UN inspection free access to their facilities.  The IAEA "Additional Protocol" was devised after the revelation of the Iraqi clandestine nuclear-weapon program to enable the IAEA to verify activities not only at the nuclear facilities reported by countries to the IAEA but also those at related facilities and ultimately unreported sites.  The protocol, however, still remains optional or voluntary.  The voices are mounting to make the Additional Protocol mandatory under the NPT/IAEA regime.  The U.N. Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters recommended it, as did his High-Level-Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.   But, will the coming NPT Review Conference do it?  If not, how else can we do so?  That is the question.

The fourth gap may be called nuclear fuel cycle gap.  In recent years we are finding out that surreptitious nuclear aspirants built up their nuclear-weapon production capability under the cover of civilian nuclear fuel cycles.  When the NPT was drafted, the production of fissile nuclear material required an advanced industrial infrastructure and large-scale industrial facilities.  Today, technology and material have become far easier to obtain, as we have witnessed in the Dr. Khan’s black market.  What can you do to close this gap?  Can we internationalize the fuel cycle as Dr. Mohammad El Baradei proposes?  Or, should we seek to limit the fuel cycle to certain well-established countries?

The fifth is the rising concern about the terrorist nexus with WMD.  The September 11 attack raised the fear of what will happen if, next time around, terrorists use WMD.  This concern recently led to the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1540, which created a new global norm against assistance to terrorist groups in acquiring WMD.  In the same resolution, the Council also decided that "all States shall take and enforce effective measures to establish domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and their means of delivery" -- a significant step indeed, insofar as it extends a binding non-proliferation obligation even to non-parties of multilateral non-proliferation treaties, thereby obligating all U.N. Member States and any other State to take actions to prevent spread of WMD and their delivery vehicles to terrorist and other non-state actors.  Will this resolution be fully implemented?  Will it be enough to stop the terrorist from getting their hands on WMD? 

After the 2000 NPT Review Conference, another setback developed as NWS failed to honour their agreement with NNWS. In particular, the NWS reneged on their agreement to stop modernising their nuclear weapons systems. Clearly the point concerning the ABM Treaty and START II and III has already been lost.

The NWS have always seen the NPT as a means of controlling horizontal proliferation rather than a treaty to bring about nuclear disarmament or even to stop vertical proliferation. This has become even more apparent during the PrepComs of 2002, 2003 and 2004 with the USA in particular focusing almost exclusively on the perceived non-compliance of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

While the other NWS may have been less vociferous they have had their moments, and when 'push comes to shove' they will act as an exclusive club. This is in large part due to the fact that they see the NPT as legitimising their possession of nuclear weapons. Which in turn they believe allows them to modernise their nuclear arsenals and bring in replacement systems.

Positions towards the NPT are not taken in isolation. The context set by the USA is clearly that disarmament and proliferation are two separate and distinct issues. In addition the prevailing trend away from multilateral treaties towards bilateral and 'coalition of the willing' agreements, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), and unilateral action has further weakened the effectiveness of not only the NPT but also negotiating forums such as the Conference on Disarmament (CD).

Further, these positions have made it even more difficult to engage the nuclear weapons holding states India, Pakistan and Israel in any disarmament process.

These are huge challenges facing the 2005 Review Conference of the NPT.  There are voices saying the Treaty is losing its relevance and the NPT regime is being eroded.  The Conference will likely be difficult for a number of reasons.  The States Parties have not yet even agreed on an agenda.  Can the Review Conference overcome the differences and regain its relevance?  Can the Conference come up with a definition to draw the boundaries of what constitutes the legitimate "peaceful use" of nuclear energy? 

The Northeast Asian question, in particular, North Korea, is a showcase of proliferation questions.  There are nuclear, chemical, biological, missile concerns; it is a case of non-compliance, withdrawal, and use of the fuel cycle for weapons purposes. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to persist as it risks unfolding the whole non-proliferation regime.

The UN panel usefully recommends an extended moratorium on constructing reprocessing and enrichment facilities, a guarantee from Security Council members to defend non-nuclear states if attacked by a nuclear-armed opponent, and faster disarmament by nuclear powers. While these recommendations represent useful steps, their logic alone is unlikely to affect behavior in Iran and North Korea.

The governments of the major powers, beginning with the United States, must address the urgent nuclear danger today. A comprehensive strategy for preventing nuclear terrorism should be organized under a doctrine of Three No's: no loose nukes, no new nascent nukes and no new nuclear-weapons states.

The first requires securing all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material, on the fastest possible timetable. Locking up valuable or dangerous items is something human beings know how to do. The United States and Russia should jointly develop a standard, act at once to secure their own materials and persuade other states' leaders to follow suit.

"No new nascent nukes" means no new national capabilities to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium. The UN panel's recommendation of a fissile cut off treaty is a start, but it must be coupled with intrusive inspections of suspected nuclear sites and enforcement mechanisms. The crucial challenge to this principle today is Iran. Preventing Iranian completion of its nuclear infrastructure will require a combination of benefits and credible threats to persuade Tehran to accept a grand bargain for denuclearization. North Korea is another case where a "no new nuclear-weapons states" strategy will require a meaningful dialogue to solve this intricate problem.

 

"Complacency and apathy are widespread in society "almost all societies" as there always appear to be more important problems to worry about than catastrophes that could lead to the end of the world."

 

"The establishment of an effective system to regulate armaments.." "..to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armament of the world’s human and economic resources"

 

ARC believes, during the first 50 years of the UN, the five permanent members of the United Nations, the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, have flooded the world with weapons bringing untold misery to the world. Despite Article 26, little has been done to end this obscene trade. Every member of the UN General Assemble should demand that the pledge in Article 26 should be honoured.

 

ARC believes in demilitarising the economy and building an alternative security

Regions of conflict must be at the center of efforts to build peace regionally. Peace building includes conflict prevention through early warning and the presence of mediators and facilitators as well as post conflict peace building. Today, peace making is at the center of political attention. This narrow view of security, while sometimes creating political and diplomatic breathing spaces to search for political solutions for conflicts, is not sufficient.

Most conflicts have deep-rooted causes that can only be addressed by civilian means of mediation and facilitation between the different needs of the people involved. Post-conflict peace building must be an integral part of efforts to secure human security in areas of conflict and tension. Unless societies and economies are demilitarized, there will be no lasting peace.

Most nations have economies geared towards preparation for war as well as industrial infrastructures geared to meeting these and not other needs. The true peace dividend is not simply the amount of money saved in the military budgets or in shifting it from one pocket to another. Rather, it is the opportunity to reallocate substantial resources to other productive activities. Like the establishment of the current permanent war economy, conversion will require large and long term investment. Internationally, all states should commit themselves to a thirty year Global Action Plan to Prevent War by reducing military budgets. A 5% reduction over 5 years would be a first step and would make available one half billion dollars a day.

 

In all these efforts, non-governmental organizations and other civil actors must be directly involved.

 

1. large and growing military budgets in the face of ravaged health and education services in most of the West, as well as many developing countries;
2. refusal by the USA, the world’s most powerful nation, to uphold important disarmament treaties such as Anti Ballistic Missile treaty and Start II, or to sign international treaties such as Kyoto and the International Criminal Court;
3. Some 30,000 nuclear weapons still in the world’s arsenal;
4. The profitable and prolific trade in small arms;
5. Billions of dollars already being spent in the USA (and probably Britain) on missile production; the USA’s so-called Missile Defence Shield, and the possibility that Canada and Japan may also join.

The solutions are:

1. Diverting the $950 billion military budget routinely spent could be used instead to feed, house and educate all the peoples of this world.
2. Seek justice and settle disputes in a non-violent way, through dialogue, the UN, the ICC and the ICJ.
3. Peace education in schools is essential and through a national database, can be used as a way of networking and informing the general public. At a global level, the role of UNESCO is important to spread its message of a culture of peace to overcome violence and conflicts.
4. Peace education should be linked to the wider expression of ideas. Such ideas need to be exciting to the younger generation. Peace hero’s, rather then military hero’s, should be made more visible in our cities, monuments and museums. We should glorify acts of humanitarianism and not acts of war.
5. Peace Education is a set of human values and not simply a subject. It is a life time endeavour which doesn’t always bear immediate results but rather requires perseverance.

The challenges of security, poverty and environmental crisis can only be met successfully through multilateral efforts based on the rule of law. All nations must strictly fulfil their treaty obligations and reaffirm the indispensable role of the United Nations and its primary responsibility for maintaining peace.

There are various approaches to disarmament as there are indeed various ways to achieve peace. But after long and hard thinking, I’ve come to the conclusion that the best way to general and total disarmament can only be achieved through a holistic, multilateral and universal approach based upon collective security combined with a set of ethics - freedom, equality, and solidarity. The process of disarmament should go hand in hand of building a viable social and sustainable development along with economic justice, poverty reduction, respect for human rights and a better environment.

Peace is not a dream. It is hard work. In today’s society, violence has been glamorised and wars have become a common occurrence. How do we counter this trend? We must deligitimised war as a way of solving disputes. Our leaders must support their rhetoric of peace with laws. For example, every country should pass a law which prevents its military budget from exceeding its spending on education and health care.

We must choose to work and persevere even when prospects for success look dim and believe in our capacity to achieve our objectives. If we can prepare and wage wars, we can also prepare and work towards peace. From kindergarden to schools, universities to global institutions we need to infuse a culture of peace.

To take forward the disarmament agenda, here are some action plans for major events in the coming year: