DISARMAMENT TIMES
NOVEMBER 2020
“We have a confluence of events which conspire together to spell our doom. We have at the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace, and Security working with the United Nations community of NGOs, member states, experts, scientists, corporations and other entities to highlight the problems and offer pathways to a safe and sustainable future. ”
— Bruce Knotts
The Worst of Times For the Disarmament Times
- Bruce Knotts (October 2020)
The epic work of Charles Dickens begins with a timeless opening, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”
Such superlatives are always risky, and we are always cautioned never to use words like always, never, best, worst or other superlatives, because someone will always find an exception. However, following Charles Dickens, I will say this is a very troubling time for the United Nations and the planet. We risk extinction and we are not taking the steps necessary to prevent it. The warnings have been clear for decades and leaders as diverse as Ronald Reagan, the Pope, William Perry, George Schultz, and many others have warned us, yet we lack the political will to avoid the disaster that’s racing towards us.
We have a confluence of events which conspire together to spell our doom. We have at the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace, and Security working with the United Nations community of NGOs, member states, experts, scientists, corporations and other entities to highlight the problems and offer pathways to a safe and sustainable future.
Nuclear weapons pose a clear and present danger to our survival. They cost far too much to design, manufacture, maintain, and enhance. The major nuclear weapons possessing states are spending inordinate amounts of money on upgrading and maintaining their nuclear weapons arsenals. The NGO Committee has worked to highlight the cost of these weapons at time when we have so many other priorities which need attention and funding. Members of the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace, and Security participated in meetings leading up to the passage in the UN General Assembly of the Ban Nuclear Weapons Treaty. One memorable meeting took place at the Mission to the UN of the Kingdom of Thailand shortly after the death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej who reigned over the Kingdom of Thailand as its beloved monarch from 1948-2016. We expressed our condolences over the death of the king and had our meeting with the Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Thailand who told us of the overwhelming support for the abolition of nuclear weapons by the nations of the world, but that the nuclear-weapons-possessing nations put pressure on their allies to oppose or abstain on the nuclear weapons ban vote. This meant that many nations such as Japan, Canada, and the Netherlands did not support the ban vote due to pressure from the United State or other nuclear weapons possessing nations. At the end of the meeting the PR of Thailand shed tears and told us of his long friendship with the late monarch of Thailand.
We have also met frequently with the UN High Representative on Disarmament in the UN Office on Disarmament Affairs. One such meeting included actor Michael Douglas who is a staunch supporter of banning nuclear weapons. I mentioned to him that we also worked on the control of conventional arms. Michael Douglas replied, “I only work on the abolition of nuclear weapons.”
We have also highlighted that we need concerted and mutual action to reduce, control, and abolish nuclear weapons. Imagine, the entire United Nations system, the UN Security Council with vigorous participation of strategic competitors such as the USA, Russia, China, UK, France, Iran, and the entire EU worked on the JCPOA: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Given my diplomatic experience, I can’t tell you how difficult it is and was to get this collection of competing powers to agree on anything. The fact that any agreement was reached, is a miracle created by very strenuous and persistent diplomatic work. Such an agreement will never 100% satisfy anyone, but it was the best deal possible at the time. Then the Trump Administration withdrew and now wants the UN to snap back the sanctions on Iran that the agreement allows if the UNSC votes for us. It won’t. Other nations reminded the USA that it had withdrawn, so lost its ability to influence the outcome of the agreement. Also, the major objective of the JCPOA was to limit Iranian nuclear weapon production. It is now closer to having nuclear weapons than when Trump became president.
Trump’s attempts at dialog with North Korea was laudable, but it did not follow through. The Trump administration is allergic to multilateral diplomacy. Now North Korea has vastly more nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles which can deliver nuclear destruction than ever before.
This is but one agreement. There are many others that have been painstakingly arrived at. There are many more necessary to save our world from disaster. However, that requires mutual cooperation and the willingness to give and take in order to arrive at enforceable and verifiable agreements on nuclear weapons, climate change, global health agreements, global migration, ending poverty, hunger and achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. That is what our committee works to highlight and achieve with all our partners.
We must end ethno-nationalism which prevents global cooperation. We can no longer afford racism or any concepts of superiority or inferiority. We are all in this together and every person and every living creature and every resource has value. We need to preserve live and conserve what we have and share resources to get though the times ahead. This means strong global cooperation on disarmament, peace, climate change, global health, global migration, refugees and much more. If each nation takes its own path alone, the world faces challenges that individual nations cannot face on their own. We must act together.
We hope you will join our work at the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace, and Security so we all can enjoy a safe and dignified life for ourselves and all those who come after us.
Washburn DT
“Among many disarmament resolutions before it, the General Assembly adopted twenty-two involving nuclear disarmament, judging by a reasonably discriminating criterion. The texts of these were not available from the United Nations as this was written. However, their subjects were mostly obvious from their titles. This made it possible to see that, reflecting the progress toward the adoption of the Treaty on The Total Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), three of the General Assembly resolutions were about it. ”
The NGO Committee’s consideration of disarmament during the 46th session of the General Assembly was dominated by several disarmament trends and events outside the United Nations, although related to debates inside it. These included the lapse of several treaties, the negotiation of major treaties outside the UN amid growing international doubt in some countries, especially the United States, about multilateral processes and solutions. These trends were intensified by an accelerated race to develop advanced weapons and devices, especially among China, Russia and the United States. In contrast, the disarmament actions of the First Committee largely repeated the past with the exception of two resolutions on a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East sponsored by Egypt and other regional countries. These recognized and supported its promising progress. However, one of them pointedly noted the absence of Israel from the effort to achieve and broaden this zone.
Debate in the Committee was vigorous and extensive, marked particularly by exchanges between the United States and Russia including a right of reply by the latter.
Members of the Committee were especially concerned about the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and the New Strategic Arms Reduction (Treaty (START). They welcomed the imminent coming into force of the former which occurred in October 2020. However, most UN members were divided about what would be needed to overcome the refusal to join the TPNW of the states already owning nuclear weapons. A considerable number of nations believed that the treaty would create a norm in international relations so powerful that those states would soon have to comply with it, even though they were not bound by the treaty. Another substantial group of nations thought that although the new norm was an important and indispensable step forward, the atomic weapon states would have to be brought to the treaty by a step-by-step process through their participation in more limited arms control treaties.
Among many disarmament resolutions before it, the General Assembly adopted twenty-two involving nuclear disarmament, judging by a reasonably discriminating criterion. The texts of these were not available from the United Nations as this was written. However, their subjects were mostly obvious from their titles. This made it possible to see that, reflecting the progress toward the adoption of the Treaty on The Total Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), three of the General Assembly resolutions were about it.
Other resolutions reflecting special current concern were about cybersecurity, regional nuclear weapons free zones and the UN centers that support them, and the protection of nations without atomic weapons from attacks with such weapons. A particularly interesting new resolution was about youth, disarmament and the threat of proliferation. Resolutions about the Conference on Disarmament and the reports of rapporteurs on specific disarmament issues served to remind members and others that, despite discouragement, work on disarmament including nuclear weapons continues.
Nonetheless, the enthusiasm about the imminent adoption of the TPNW treaty arose not only from its clear importance and value, but also from the satisfaction that such a fundamentally essential treaty had resulted from multilateral negotiations at the United Nations. This contrasted with the disheartening reality that START and the treaty on intermediate range nuclear missiles were bilateral and in negotiation only by the United States and Russia.
The disarmament work of the United Nations does serve to remind the superpowers that nuclear weapons owned by any nation threaten the lives and fortunes of billions of people worldwide. The full value of this may have to wait to be realized until nuclear weapon nations, especially the United States, recognize again the importance of multilateral approaches to disarmament negotiations and the achievement of treaties, especially about nuclear weapons
POPES ON NUKES
Rev. Brian K. Muzas Ph.d.
Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations. Assistant Professor, School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University
Leading up to the 75th anniversary of the UN’s founding and the atom bomb’s first use, Pope Francis, temporal leader of Vatican City and spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, has attracted attention for his remarks on eliminating nuclear weapons. While not the first pope to call for nuclear abolition, the plainspoken Francis has focused additional attention on nuclear weapons and the disarmament agenda. This article contextualizes the pontiff’s recent remarks, highlights the ever-deepening Catholic antipathy toward nuclear weapons, and links Francis’ statements to future directions.
The pope is not simply a religious leader, for the Vatican has conducted diplomacy for centuries. In the 20th century, the Holy See’s interventions on nuclear policy drew serious interest. The Cuban Missile Crisis, arguably the Cold War’s most dangerous moment, began only five days after the Church council known as Vatican II convened, so one might imagine that this nuclear crisis would have prompted a decisive Catholic response.
In fact, the postwar popes were already uniformly opposing nuclear weapons with increasing specificity. Pius XII framed his opposition according to the just war criterion of proportionality. John XXIII was the first pope to call for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and during his pontificate the Holy See became a neutral, but not silent, Permanent Observer at the UN. Paul VI continued his predecessor’s drive for peace and disarmament in cooperation with the UN. John Paul I, who reigned just 33 days, instructed his diplomats to use Vatican resources to work with governments and international organizations on disarmament and peace. John Paul II, whose pontificate saw the end of the Cold War, took a pastoral approach to nuclear disarmament; his successor, Benedict XVI, took a scholarly approach that synthesized and structured the contributions of his predecessors.
Some have misrepresented John Paul II, the first pope to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a keen supporter of nuclear deterrence. They misread his 1982 address to the UN General Assembly. John Paul twice mentioned deterrence. He first referred negatively to deterrence as the “balance of terror.” He subsequently rejected permanent deterrence as immoral, “certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament.” John Paul’s conditional toleration of deterrence as a steppingstone was anything but avid support. Moreover, he stated that “like peace, the world wants disarmament; the world needs disarmament,” and, “I wish to reassure you that the constant concern and consistent efforts of the Catholic Church will not cease until there is a general verifiable disarmament, until the hearts of all are won over to those ethical choices which will guarantee a lasting peace.”
By systematizing remarks like these from John Paul II and his predecessors, Pope Benedict XVI showed that nuclear deterrence strategies were isolated outliers on the global policy landscape. This foundation leads directly into Pope Francis’ remarks.
In his 2014 World Day of Peace address, Pope Francis spoke plainly: “I make my own the appeal of my predecessors for the non-proliferation of arms and for disarmament of all parties, beginning with nuclear and chemical weapons.” His message to the Vienna Conference the same year stated that “nuclear deterrence and the threat of mutually assured destruction cannot be the basis for an ethics of fraternity and peaceful coexistence among peoples and states.” His 2018 World Day of Peace address combines both thoughts:
An ethics of fraternity and peaceful coexistence between individuals and among peoples cannot be based on the logic of fear, violence and closed-mindedness, but on responsibility, respect and sincere dialogue. Hence, I plead for disarmament and for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons: nuclear deterrence and the threat of mutual assured destruction are incapable of grounding such an ethics.
When Pope Francis decried the use and possession of nuclear weapons during his 2019 trip to Japan, he spotlighted the failures of nuclear disarmament and arms control ahead of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference (postponed to 2021 due to the novel coronavirus) and the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, the pope said,
The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possessing of nuclear weapons is immoral, as I already said two years ago. We will be judged on this. Future generations will rise to condemn our failure if we spoke of peace but did not act to bring it about among the peoples of the earth. How can we speak of peace even as we build terrifying new weapons of war? How can we speak about peace even as we justify illegitimate actions by speeches filled with discrimination and hate?
Perhaps Francis’ most significant statement on nuclear weapons came at a press conference during his return from Japan when he called for placing the Church’s opposition to nuclear weapons in the catechism: “The use of nuclear weapons is immoral, which is why it must be added to the catechism of the Catholic Church. Not only their use, but also possessing them: because an accident or the madness of some government leader, one person’s madness can destroy humanity.” The catechism, a summary of beliefs, teachings, and principles, is designed for use as an instructional tool. The current catechism already contains passages against arms accumulation, deterrence, arms races, over-armament, and indiscriminate destruction “especially [by] atomic, biological, or chemical weapons.” The pope’s innovation is to include explicitly the logical conclusions of principles already found within it.
Since Francis’ statement, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) reached an important milestone: Honduras became the 50th state to ratify the treaty on October 25, 2020, triggering a 90-day countdown after which the TPNW will enter into force on January 22, 2021. Will the world be nuclear-free that day? No, of course not – so what will the Catholic Church do?
“We think in centuries here,” runs the Vatican maxim. Religious actors work to timelines longer than crises or electoral cycles, and religious schools and universities educate new generations to change policies and norms and to build justice and peace. That Pope Francis has proposed revising the Catholic catechism, a teaching document, should not be overlooked. Moreover, the word “pontiff” comes from the Latin pontifex, or “bridge builder”: The pope’s job is to build bridges among people. In this role, Pope Francis has issued the Catholic Church’s latest call to action on nuclear disarmament and positive peace while assuring that he, his successors, and his Church will breathe life into the policy process if it stalls. Inside the UN, the Holy See will intervene as a Permanent Observer; outside the UN, the Catholic Church will continue the antinuclear religious formation of its members and the antinuclear education of its Catholic and non-Catholic school and university students.
KEEPING PAROS ALIVE
by: Joanne Dufour
Joanne Dufour: Retired high school and college instructor | Current Red Cross trainer on international humanitarian law | Co-instructor at Olympia Coalition Against Nuclear Weapons affiliated with Antioch College | Extensive curriculum writing on international law for several organizations including the United Nations Department of Education.
It isn’t like the international community hasn’t cared about what happens in space as a result of human endeavors. They have as long as there’s been a forum to express concern like the United Nations, but those with power and money have essentially skirted any efforts to restrain and limit the weaponization of space and create the possibility of an arms race there. It is that reality which has led to ongoing attention to PAROS: THE Prevention of an Arms Race in Space. No this article is not about an elegant mistyped French city, but instead about international efforts to define the use of space, cite restrictions to militarize it that still exist and efforts to patch up the loopholes to maintain a peaceful outer space.
But let’s clarify the terms to start and distinguish between the militarization and the weaponization of space. Essentially the distinction has to do with the location of the weapon. Space has been militarized since the earliest communication satellites and today countries all over the world use satellites for such “military activities” as command and control, strategic planning such as information garnered from reconnaissance and contributing to real life combat, communication, monitoring early warning and navigation in such actions as bombing raids, surveillance, and telecommunications satellites but the weapons are on earth. Should these devices with a destructive capacity of their own be placed in orbit, their existence would weaponize space. Space-based weapons can be used to destroy targets either in orbit or on the ground. Details per weapon would need specific clarification.
It was in the time of experimentation with much more powerful nuclear weapons (US’ Castle Bravo in 1954 and the Soviet’s Tsar Bomba in 1957), satellites like Spudnick (1957) , Yuri Gaganin’s successful flight (1961) and the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova (1963) that competition for space travel began in earnest. And in those initial undertakings travel and exploration was agreed to be joint ventures among nuclear powers with the understanding that nuclear weapons were not allowed. In 1967 the OUTER SPACE TREATY (the Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies) promising that the exploration and use of outer space shall be a common province for humankind came into force. It was followed by five other treaties relating to space. In 1969 Commander Neil Armstrong and Pilot Buzz Aldrin planted the US flag on the moon.
Relevant UN bodies dealing with the issue of outer space over time expanded to
Ø UN General Assembly First Committee
Ø Conference on Disarmament
Ø Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
Ø UN General Assembly Fourth Committee
Ø International Telecommunications Union
Ø UN Office for Disarmament Affairs
Ø United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
Ø UN Office of Outer Space Affairs
PAROS
Essentially since the Second UN Special Session on DISARMAMENT in 1982, resolutions calling for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Space, PAROS, have continually been passed by the General Assembly with only two negative or abstaining votes by the United States and Israel.
On February 12, 2008, China and Russia introduced a Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT) to the Conference on Disarmament. The United States dismissed this proposal. Since then, in various fora, declarations, resolutions, statements and a code have been released restraining any use of nuclear weapons in space with the consequent US opposition.
The PAROS resolution has called for states, especially those with space capabilities, to refrain from actions contrary to the objective of PAROS and to “contribute actively” to that objective. It argues for consolidation and reinforcement of the outer space legal regime. A PAROS treaty would complement the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which aims to preserve space for peaceful purposes, if it prevented the use of space weapons and the development of space weapon technology and technology related to so-called “missile defense.” A PAROS treaty would also prevent any nation from gaining a further military advantage in outer space and would hopefully reduce current military uses of outer space.
On November 5, 2019, the First Committee of the UN General Assembly voted in favor of adopting three resolutions to prevent the militarization of space. These resolutions were “Further Practical Measures for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space,” “No First Placement of Weapons in Outer Space,” and “Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space.”
Increasingly, humans are looking to space assets to improve the quality of life on Earth. This perspective was captured by the 50th anniversary meeting of the United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in 2018. The goal of this meeting was to chart the future of cooperation in space and consider how space can be used to benefit humankind, particularly in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). UN Ambassador for Space and former U.S. astronaut John Kelly urged participants to mobilize space capabilities to take care of this planet and its people. This is the goal of the new Space 2030 agenda: to leverage collaboration to use space to meet the SDGs.
Efforts to reap greater benefits from space are evident in huge national investments. In 2018, a flurry of new space agencies and programs took shape around the world, including in Australia, Turkey, and Zimbabwe. Many countries, including Kenya, Bhutan, Jordan, Costa Rica, and New Zealand, had their first satellites launched.
New cooperative ventures to extend access to outer space and space-based data – including a partnership between China and the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) to provide access to China’s future space station, and efforts to make space data publicly available – also stand out.
As we look to the future the following issues, according to the researchers, need to be more fully addressed
Space projects financed by private individuals or companies
Addressing/encouraging national space policies that encourage weapons-free space;
Cooperation among countries to build international legal regimes, through soft-law approaches like codes of conduct, that will limit weaponization of space;
and perhaps by criticizing any space actors who attempt to deploy weapons in space.