DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

During the general debate of the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly from 19 to 25 September in New York, presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers from all regions of the world spoke in favour of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which opened for signature on 20 September. Here are some of the highlights.

Austria: H.E. Mr. Sebastian Kurz, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs

“The new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is an important achievement … It is a crucial step to get rid of all nuclear weapons. Today, we often hear that nuclear weapons are necessary for security. This narrative is not only wrong, it is dangerous. The new treaty provides a real alternative: a world without nuclear weapons, where everyone is safer. The overwhelming support of the international community in adopting this treaty demonstrates that many countries share this goal.”

Botswana: H.E. Mr. Mokgweetsi Eric Masisi, Vice-President

“Botswana fully supports the international community’s efforts towards nuclear disarmament. We also reaffirm our commitment to international instruments that ban weapons of mass destruction … In this respect, we welcome the recent adoption by the UN General Assembly of a legally binding treaty to prohibit the production of nuclear weapons. We are fully convinced that only a nuclear-free world would guarantee a safer future for our populations.”

Brazil: H.E. Mr. Michel Temer, President

“Tomorrow [20 September] I will have the honour of signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Brazil was among the drafters of the treaty. It will be a historic moment.”

Burkina Faso: H.E. Mr. Roch Marc Christian Kaboré, President

“I urge all countries, particularly those whose ratification is necessary to this end, to make the rapid entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty a priority. In this context, the adoption on 7 July 2017 of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons should reinforce this dynamic.”

Cabo Verde: H.E. Mr. Jose Ulisses Correia e Silva, Prime Minister

“Cabo Verde has recently … signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was concluded in New York on July 7, 2017.”

Chile: H.E. Mrs. Michelle Bachelet Jeria, President

“We actively participated in the negotiations to generate the nuclear weapons prohibition treaty, which we signed this morning [20 September]. It is a historical fact that creates a rule establishing the basis for future negotiations that will allow the total elimination of nuclear weapons in a verifiable and irreversible way.”

Comoros: H.E. Mr. Azali Assoumani, President

“The Union of the Comoros, which took part yesterday [20 September] at UN headquarters in the signing ceremony for the new nuclear weapons treaty, which I myself signed, is joining the international community to require all countries concerned to comply fully with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and to abandon their nuclear weapons programmes.”

Costa Rica: H.E. Mr. Luis Guillermo Solís Rivera, President

“We see with hope, joy and pride that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was finally approved in July of this year, a process in which I congratulate the Costa Rican ambassador Elayne Whyte, who, as president of the conference during the negotiations, led the process with courage and great skill. That effort, together with that of the participating delegations, made a dream come true after more than seven decades. This treaty is a strong message that most UN member states do not support, do not accept, and do not consider nuclear weapons as legitimate, and that the international community clearly states that nuclear weapons are not only immoral, but are henceforth illegal. The adoption of this new norm of international law that absolutely prohibits nuclear weapons is therefore established in all circumstances and provides a solid and legally binding framework for the destruction and total elimination of nuclear weapons in a transparent, irreversible and verifiable manner within specified time frames. As an unarmed democracy resting its defence on international law, we are satisfied that in addition to prohibiting the development, production, manufacture, transfer, possession, storage, location, installation and deployment of nuclear weapons, the treaty explicitly prohibits the threat of its use, thereby also banning so-called doctrines of nuclear deterrence security. Many will say that all this effort is meaningless, since none of the nuclear powers had wanted to be part of it. I tell them they are wrong. The desire of the 122 countries that approved the text of the treaty is the legitimate voice of people who are lovers of peace and of the defence of humanity. Any effort to be on the side of disarmament will never be nonsense. Being on the side of peace will never be a mistake. Costa Rica applauds these 122 countries and all those who will sign the treaty tomorrow [20 September] and makes a vehement call for others to join in, so that we can ensure a future for us and for those who will come after us. It is our responsibility to continue to support the creation of peace so that we can build the world we dream about.”

Cuba: H.E. Mr. Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“We all share the common responsibility to preserve the existence of human beings in the face of a nuclear threat. An important contribution to the achievement of that goal was the historic adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons under the auspices of the United Nations, which proscribes the use and the threat of use of those weapons that have the capacity to annihilate the human species.”

Ecuador: H.E. Mr. Lenin Moreno Garcés, Constitutional President

“Today [20 September] we will subscribe to the nuclear weapons prohibition treaty, and we call on all countries to subscribe to this historic international instrument.”

Egypt: “Several recent remarkable developments, such as the adoption of the humanitarian pledge as well as a landmark treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, are clear signs that the circumstances have changed on the international stage. These are clear messages that those non-nuclear-weapon states who have truly committed themselves to the principle of disarmament and non-proliferation are becoming increasingly impatient regarding the necessity of seriously addressing the gaps in the prevailing regime and the discrimination embedded therein, which was not intended to last forever at the time the NPT was negotiated and entered into force.”

Grenada: H.E. Mr. Elvin Nimrod, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Grenada views the situation on the Korean peninsula with great trepidation, and our position on these matters is clear, and to that effect the cabinet of ministers has recently approved the signing of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inherently destructive and serves no useful purpose for humanity. The mere existence of these weapons is unacceptable. Let us never forget the suffering of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

Guatemala: H.E. Mr. Jimmy Morales, President

“Collective security can only be achieved through the prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons. For this reason, Guatemala tomorrow [20 September] will sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which constitutes an important step towards a world free of nuclear weapons.”

Holy See: H.E. Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, Secretary of Relations with States

“The Holy See has signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and has already deposited its ratification, because it believes that it is an important contribution in the overall effort toward complete nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, an advance toward the fulfilment of the commitment of the states parties to the NPT ‘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 a step toward negotiating a ‘general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control’. While much remains to be done for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons truly to make a difference and achieve its full promise, the Holy See believes that it is one more blow on the anvil toward the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.’”

Iran: H.E. Mr. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Iran voted in favour of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and will continue to support its overall objective. Contrary to some arguments that this treaty will undermine the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Iran is of the view that it will reinforce the nuclear disarmament regime.”

Ireland: H.E. Mr. Simon Coveney, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade

“Earlier this week I was very pleased to sign the recently approved Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was supported by 122 members of this Assembly. Ireland is proud to have played a leadership role, together with Austria, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa, in bringing forward the UN resolution convening the diplomatic conference that negotiated this ground-breaking treaty. The case for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons has never been stronger as the volatile situation in the Korean peninsula makes clear.”

Jamaica: H.E. Mrs. Kamina Johnson Smith, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade

“Jamaica is deeply concerned about the heightened menace to international peace and security arising particularly from the threat of nuclear weapons. We have had a longstanding commitment to the goal of achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world and are a state party to the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which declared the Caribbean and Latin America as the first nuclear-weapon-free zone in a densely populated area. At the universal level, therefore, we welcome the fact that we now have the first global treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, as a critical step towards addressing some of these concerns. It is our hope that it will enter into force in short order and will be duly observed universally.”

Kazakhstan: H.E. Mr. Kairat Abdrakhmanov, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“President Nazarbayev outlined a number of important initiatives [in August] that I would like to share with you … [including] to call for joint efforts to ensure that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons enters into force by 2020 – this is the 50th anniversary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entering into force.”

Kenya: H.E. Ms. Amina Chawahir Mohamed, Cabinet Secretary for Foreign Affairs and International Trade

“Kenya welcomes the historic adoption on 7 July 2017 of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Although nuclear-weapon states are absent, the overwhelming majority of member states support the treaty. This demonstrates our concerns with the danger the use of such weapons poses to humanity, as we were all reminded by the unfortunate nuclear detonation that took place on 3 September. The adoption of the treaty gives us renewed hope that it is possible, if we work together, to rid the world of nuclear weapons.”

Laos: H.E. Mr. Saleumxay Kommasith, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“The Lao People’s Democratic Republic earnestly hopes to see the world without nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. In this context, we welcome the recent adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which we also signed two days ago [21 September]. But we are well aware that we still have an uphill task ahead of us for this treaty to enter into force and be effectively implemented. Therefore, the international community has to redouble its efforts in this respect.”

Lesotho: H.E. Mr. Thomas Motsoahae Thabane, Prime Minister

“On the nuclear disarmament landscape, the UN made significant progress a few months ago with the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, with the goal of leading towards their total elimination. This is a historic achievement of our time, especially in light of the ongoing tensions in the Korean peninsula. The argument that nuclear weapons are a deterrent is a fallacy; these weapons are a threat to human existence and their possessors should do the right thing and renounce them in line with their international obligations. This treaty should not remain on paper only, but it must be ratified and implemented by all.”

Libya: H.E. Mr. Elmahdi Elmajerbi, Permanent Representative to the UN

“We believe that the international community has moved in the right direction by agreeing on a legally binding treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons … We welcome this treaty and we urge all states to sign and ratify it in order for it to enter into force. In this respect, we are among the 50 countries who have signed this treaty.”

Liechtenstein: H.E. Ms. Aurelia Frick, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“The people we serve look at us to reduce risks, to defuse tensions. Yet the world spirals towards a new arms race. We are facing increased risks of self-destruction. This includes the unspeakable horror of the use of nuclear weapons. Most of us remember the shocking pictures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 from our history books. The United Nations was built on the ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and on the promise of ‘never again’. But we have not delivered on this promise – in collective complacency. This week we have changed course for the better, with the signing of the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons. No doubt, it will take time to see the effects of the treaty on nuclear stockpiles. But setting a number of important legal benchmarks that will become binding norms is great progress. Nuclear weapons are prohibited and should be eliminated. Their use can never be justified. The suffering they cause runs counter to the principles of humanity, basic tenets of international humanitarian law and the dictates of public conscience. On Wednesday [20 September], I signed the treaty on behalf of Liechtenstein, as one of 50 states. Together we extend a hand to those who so far have chosen to stay apart. We need their commitment to finally rid the world of nuclear weapons.”

(Continued in right column)

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

Malaysia: H.E. Mr. Dato’ Sri Anifah Aman, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Earlier this week [20 September], Malaysia joined other member states in signing the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons. We are convinced that the political and legal impact of this treaty will steer the international community collectively towards the elimination of nuclear weapons and the maintenance of a world free of nuclear weapons. We were guided by the commitment of states on an instrument which is legally sound, feasible to implement and one that sends a powerful political message that nuclear weapons are categorically unacceptable.”

Maldives: H.E. Dr. Mohamed Asim, Minister of Foreign Affairs

“The Maldives applauds the monumental adoption on 7 July 2017 of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons following the United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading to their total elimination. The treaty is the most important pledge that the international community has made in the relentless pursuit of a nuclear-free world.”

Marshall Islands: H.E. Mr. John Silk, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Recent events should create far greater political resolve to curb and ultimately eliminate global nuclear threats. But if it were a task so easily done, perhaps the world would not have struggled for so long. In this regard, the Republic of the Marshall Islands supports those nations who are now able to affirm the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and we will continue to add our own voice in all fora, including the CTBT and NPT. We are committed to a close and inclusive examination of our own participation in the nuclear ban treaty, listening closely to our stakeholders and affected communities, and also taking into account any possible implications on our mutual security relationships. It will always remain our fervent hope that such weapons of mass destruction shall never again be tested or unleashed, and that all nuclear-armed nations will have the necessary political will to disarm.”

Mauritius: H.E. Mr. Pravind Kumar Jugnauth, Prime Minister

“Mauritius voted in favour of the resolution adopting the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons last July and we hope to see complete denuclearization throughout the world. We urge all those involved in potential conflicts around the world, especially where there is a possibility of nuclear weapons being used, to exercise restraint and promote dialogue instead of belligerent posturing that feeds unrest and dangerous escalation.”

Mexico: H.E. Mr. Luis Videgaray Caso, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“The existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the whole of humanity. Faced with the persistent nuclear danger, yesterday [20 September] the government of Mexico signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which the executive will shortly submit to Senate for the approval of the republic.”

Mongolia: H.E. Mr. Tsend Munkh-Orgil, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Current tensions have only deepened the concern associated with nuclear weapons. Mongolia welcomes the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on 7 July 2017. So long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of their use will persist. The only guarantee of the non-use of nuclear weapons is their total elimination.”

Morocco: H.E. Mr. Omar Hilale, Permanent Representative to the UN

“The adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a landmark step towards the total elimination of these weapons and towards a more reassuring future.”

Nepal: H.E. Mr. Sher Bahadur Deuba, Prime Minister

“The vicious race for weapons of mass destruction continues to threaten the world. Nepal calls for a time-bound, general and complete disarmament. Nepal welcomes the confidence-building measures on conventional weapons, ending nearly two decades of stalemate in the UN Disarmament Commission. Nepal has signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as a step towards nuclear disarmament.”

New Zealand: H.E. Mr. Craig Hawke, Permanent Representative to the UN

“The risks associated with nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation have been a key factor in New Zealand’s longstanding commitment to international nuclear disarmament. Last week [20 September] we were pleased to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty represents an important step towards a nuclear-free world.”

Nicaragua: H.E. Mrs. María Rubiales de Chamorro, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Nicaragua advocates for a general and complete disarmament and is in favour of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. We have signed the nuclear weapons prohibition treaty.”

Nigeria: H.E. Mr. Muhammadu Buhari, President

“The crisis in the Korean peninsula underscores the urgency for all member states, guided by the spirit of enthroning a safer and more peaceful world, to ratify without delay the treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, which will be open for signature here tomorrow [20 September].”

Palau: H.E. Mr. Tommy Esang Remengesau Jr., President

“Taking into account the recent actions by North Korea, we must take seriously the long-term need to ban nuclear weapons. A good place to start is the accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I must give credit to the leaders of my country, who, over 30 years ago, recognized the threat of nuclear weapons and banned the use, testing and storage of nuclear weapons in Palau’s constitution. In their honour, yesterday [20 September] I signed this treaty.”

Paraguay: H.E. Mr. Horacio Manuel Cartes Jara, President

“In Paraguay, a constitutional provision bans weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, our country commends the recent adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”

Peru: H.E. Mr. Gustavo Meza-Cuadra, Permanent Representative to the UN

“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the possible access to them by terrorist groups are real threats. That is why we have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and we hope that all states possessing such weapons will join this instrument.”

Philippines: H.E. Mr. Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Secretary for Foreign Affairs

“If we listen to each other, we will hear the same thing. We have no need for nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no benefit in another cold war, neither in an arms race. We want nuclear weapons to be a thing of the past and we do not want an arms race anywhere in the world. On July 7, the Philippines joined 121 other member states in securing our world from weapons of mass destruction by adopting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Three days ago [20 September], I signed the treaty. The Philippines calls on member states with nuclear weapons to likewise sign on. We can only have a safe world if we get rid of all nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. By doing so, we ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind’.”

Samoa: H.E. Mr. Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, Prime Minister

“As small island Pacific countries, we are no longer protected by our isolation – we are bystanders but with the greatest to lose in the unfolding power drama being played out in the Korean peninsula. We pray for visionary leadership with sound moral judgement on both sides to ensure we give peace a chance. It explains why I signed yesterday [20 September] on Samoa’s behalf the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As a signatory to this historic treaty, we wanted to demonstrate unequivocally our aspiration to have a world without nuclear weapons. The conventional narrative that the possession of nuclear weapons will act as deterrent to make the world a safer place to live is not borne out by the current realities – otherwise the developments in the Korean peninsula would not have happened at all. We firmly believe that possessing nuclear weapons and adding new nuclear powers only make our world less safe, less secure and less peaceful – hence the need to rid our world completely of all nuclear weapons.”

San Marino: H.E. Mr. Nicola Renzi, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“The Republic of San Marino took part in the negotiations that led to the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons last July. The treaty is an important step to achieve the common goal of a world without nuclear weapons.”

South Africa: H.E. Mr. Jacob Zuma, President

“As a country that voluntarily dismantled its nuclear weapons programme, South Africa is of the firm view that there are no safe hands for weapons of mass destruction. The only viable solution to the problems of nuclear weapons is their total elimination as expressed in the recently UN-adopted treaty banning nuclear weapons. It can no longer be acceptable that some few countries keep arsenals and stockpiles of nuclear weapons as part of their strategic defence and security doctrine, while expecting others to remain at their mercy. We are concerned that any possible accidental detonation would lead to a disaster of epic proportions. We are making a clarion call to all member states of the UN to sign and ratify the ban treaty in order to rid the world and humanity of these lethal weapons of mass destruction.”

Tanzania: H.E. Mr. Augustine Phillip Mahiga, Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

“Tanzania commends the recent adoption of the nuclear ban treaty, which puts nuclear weapons on the same legal ground as other weapons of mass destruction. We should all support this treaty in order to increase our moral authority in the fight against nuclear weapons proliferation.”

Thailand: H.E. Mr. Don Pramudwinai, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Two days ago [20 September], Thailand signed and deposited our instrument of ratification to the nuclear weapons ban treaty. We are proud to be among the first countries to do so. We wish to call on others to do the same. By doing so, we are sending out our message to our children and grandchildren that we do care.”

Trinidad and Tobago: H.E. Mr. Dennis Moses, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Trinidad and Tobago was among the 122 states which voted in favour of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted on 7 July 2017. This treaty is particularly significant as it is the first multilateral legally binding instrument for nuclear disarmament to have been negotiated in 20 years. We look forward to the convening of the high-level conference on nuclear disarmament by 2018. As a small island developing state, Trinidad and Tobago actively participated in the negotiations to prohibit nuclear weapons, acutely aware of the destructive force of these weapons of mass destruction to, inter alia, human life, the environment, food security, infrastructure and economic growth.”

Tuvalu: H.E. Mr. Enele Sosene Sopoaga, Prime Minister

“Just yesterday [20 September], with pride on behalf of Tuvalu, I signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as a further commitment to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which was negotiated and drafted in the 1984 Pacific Island Leaders Forum held in Tuvalu. It is our fervent hope that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, including the trade of materials and development of technologies to produce such weapons, are totally banned and prohibited worldwide by the UN. Humanity must be advanced not on the principles of fear and deterrence, not on the adage of might is right, rather on moral justice for human equity, trust, respect, and the full enjoyment of basic human rights.”

Uruguay: H.E. Mr. Rodolfo Nin Novoa, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Uruguay welcomes the success of the United Nations conference that negotiated a binding instrument to ban nuclear weapons and bring about their total elimination, which concluded with the adoption of the historic Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, recently opened for signature by all states, and which Uruguay has just signed [20 September]. In this sense, we call on all countries to sign this instrument, which aims to ensure a decent life for future generations and avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.”

Vanuatu: H.E. Mr. Charlot Salwai Tabimasmas, Prime Minister

“My government reaffirms its commitment to the denuclearization of the Pacific, and we salute the treaty adopted by the conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons. Vanuatu reaffirms its commitment to total nuclear disarmament.”

Venezuela: H.E. Mr. Jorge Arreaza Montserrat, Minister for Foreign Affairs

“Venezuela is strongly opposed to the existence of nuclear weapons on our planet. Their possession presents to humanity unjustifiable and unimaginable anguish and risks. That is why we signed last Wednesday [20 September] the nuclear weapons prohibition treaty. We must make a supreme effort, so that the nuclear crises de-escalate and disappear (hopefully with their weapons) through dialogue and human rationality.”

Vietnam: H.E. Mr. Phạm Bình Minh, Deputy Prime Minister

“We welcome the recent adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a historic milestone towards a world free of nuclear weapons. Today [22 September], I sign this treaty and call upon others to sign and ratify the treaty to enable its early entry into force. Let us all be clear: the danger of nuclear weapons still looms over mankind as long as they exist.”

Zambia: H.E. Mr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu, President

“Zambia is gratified by the signing of the nuclear weapons ban treaty recently [adopted] in July 2017. We congratulate all those who worked so hard to achieve this result, and we look forward to witnessing its coming into effect.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the United Nations Press Centre

Against a backdrop of rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula, speakers in the General Assembly today emphasized the urgent need for firm political will to advance towards the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Ministers and representatives of 46 Member States, delegations, the United Nations system and civil society took the floor during a day-long General Assembly high-level meeting held on September 26 to commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

“The only world that is safe from the use of nuclear weapons is a world that is completely free of nuclear weapons,” said Secretary‑General António Guterres, recalling that nuclear disarmament had been a principled objective of the United Nations from the very first Assembly resolution in 1946 to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which had opened for signature on 20 September.

In opening remarks, he noted, however, that the universally held goal of disarmament had been challenged of late, including by a series of provocative nuclear and missile tests by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Unequivocally condemning Pyongyang’s actions, he welcomed the Security Council’s firm response and its desire for a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution.

He went on to note significant steps by nuclear-weapon States — especially the Russian Federation and the United States — to cut back their arsenals.  However, subsequent expensive modernization campaigns and the absence of planned arsenal reductions made it hard to see how disarmament could move forward, he said.

General Assembly President Miroslav Lajčák (Slovakia) described the Treaty as a sign of determination.  Pledging to do everything possible during his term in office to realize the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world, he said discussions that had led to that instrument’s adoption should continue to ensure that all the differing views of Member States were properly addressed.

In the ensuing debate, speakers underlined the humanitarian and environmental consequences of an accidental or deliberate detonation of nuclear weapons, with some highlighting how money spent on producing, maintaining and modernizing them could be better invested in sustainable development.

Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Jorge Arreaza, Venezuela’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, urged Member States to support the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament at the United Nations no later than 2018.  “As long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of proliferation exists”, emphasizing the need for a new comprehensive and systematic approach to disarmament, he said.
Numerous delegates condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for violating international law and ignoring Security Council resolutions in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Many appealed for dialogue and a diplomatic solution, and for all sides to refrain from rhetoric that might inflame the situation.

(Continued in right column)

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

Japan’s delegate, recalling the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear tests were not only a grave and imminent threat, but also a challenge to the disarmament and non-proliferation regime.

Two of the five nuclear-weapon States shared their perspective, with China’s representative saying disarmament efforts must proceed in a step-by-step manner through existing mechanisms to ensure the participation of all countries.

His counterpart from the Russian Federation, asserting that the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons had been developed in haste, said nuclear-weapon States had had good reasons for not attending the recent conference.  The instrument ignored the existing reality and the opinion of nuclear-weapon States, he said, noting that it should have been adopted by consensus instead of through a vote.  The focus now should be on creating a favourable atmosphere for progress towards disarmament on the principle of equal, indivisible security for all States without exception.

Raising another concern, he voiced regret over recent attempts to torpedo the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme, stressing that all parties should continue to implement the agreement in good faith.  The same approach must be taken with regard to the tensions on the Korean Peninsula, the cause of which was not only Pyongyang’s possession of nuclear weapons, but the absence of an overall security mechanism for the region as a whole, he said.

Germany’s representative, underscoring his country’s commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), said disarmament efforts could only succeed if they took the prevailing security environment into account.  With like-minded partners, Germany advocated a step-by-step approach, with the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the core of an effort that would include a fresh nuclear arms control agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States, which together controlled 90 per cent of the world’s estimated 15,000 nuclear weapons.

The representative of South Africa, which had voluntarily dismantled its nuclear weapons programme, said there were “no safe hands” when it came to weapons of mass destruction.  He expressed deep concern about the catastrophic consequences of detonating atomic bombs, a point highlighted in three international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

Turning to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, several speakers appealed for the remaining Annex II countries that had yet to sign or ratify that instrument to do so.  Delegates from the Middle East, noting that Israel was not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, expressed frustration that a nuclear-weapon-free zone had yet to be established in the region.
Also speaking today were ministers, senior officials and representatives of El Salvador (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), Guyana, Indonesia, Maldives, Iran, Philippines, Cuba, Algeria, Turkey, Thailand, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Austria, India, Costa Rica, United Republic of Tanzania, Jamaica, Libya, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Ecuador, Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco, Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chile, Honduras, Argentina, Samoa, Guatemala, Ireland, Timor-Leste, Malaysia and Sweden, as well as the Holy See and the League of Arab States.  Also speaking were representatives of two civil society groups:  Basel Peace Office and Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.

Click here for the speeches.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly

The international Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, in short UNPA, is now endorsed across party lines by more than 1,500 current and former members of parliament from over 120 countries.

Possible logo of a UN Parliamentary Assembly

The campaign’s appeal for the creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly that was signed by the lawmakers calls for “a gradual implementation of democratic participation and representation on the global level” and states that “to ensure international cooperation, secure the acceptance and to enhance the legitimacy of the United Nations and strengthen its capacity to act, people must be more effectively and directly included into the activities of the United Nations and its international organizations.”

“This is an important milestone,” said Andreas Bummel, the campaign’s coordinator. “The support of a UN Parliamentary Assembly by such a broad group of parliamentarians from all the world’s regions shows once again that it is high time for the United Nations to consider this project,” he emphasized. 

“If it comes to democratizing the world organization and global cooperation, it is no longer possible to ignore the proposal for a UN Parliamentary Assembly. This is a success of the campaign and of the numerous parliamentarians whose support the campaign could mobilize”, commented Jo Leinen, a member of the European Parliament and co-chair of the campaign’s parliamentary advisory group.

The 1,500th lawmaker who signed the appeal for a UNPA last week was Nomsa Tarabella-Marchesi from South Africa. “The UN would benefit from involving elected representatives in its deliberations. After all, in many cases it’s them who are needed to help implement UN policy at the national level, especially if it comes to the Agenda 2030. A UN Parliamentary Assembly would also provide for democratic oversight of the UN’s operations, including playing a meaningful role vis-à-vis the Security Council. This additional layer of accountability would increase the world organization’s democratic character,” Mrs. Tarabella-Marchesi said.

(continued in right column)

Proposals for Reform of the United Nations: Are they sufficiently radical?

(continued from left column)

European lawmaker Soraya Post who recently supported a pro-UNPA motion in the European Parliament said that “we as peoples of the world must be be able to directly influence the UN’s political agenda and its implementation. It is a matter of our human rights and their full realization”.

Signatories include the president of the Pan-African Parliament, Roger Nkodo Dang from Cameroon, and the chairpersons of the parliamentary committees on foreign affairs in Belgium and India, Dirk van der Maelen and Shashi Tharoor, respectively. 

Numerous lawmakers who signed the appeal occupy important executive positions today. Among them are Germany’s foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel, the EU’s commissioner for the digital economy and society, Mariya Gabriel from Bulgaria, the president of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins, Sweden’s minister for international development cooperation, Isabella Lövin, the EU’s foreign minister and vice-president of the EU’s commission, Federica Mogherini, Argentina’s vice-president, Gabriela Michetti, or Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

With more than 100, the highest number of current members of parliament who endorse the campaign come from Germany, followed by Canada with over 50 and Sweden with over 40. Other countries with more than 10 current parliamentarians include Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, India, Italy, South Africa, Spain and Switzerland. More than 50 individual members of the European Parliament are on record as well.

The establishment of a UNPA has been supported by the European Parliament, the Latin-American Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament, among others.

Apart from members of parliament, the campaign has also been endorsed by numerous former UN officials, distinguished scholars, cultural innovators, representatives of civil society organizations, and many committed citizens from all walks of life.

Full list of signatories

Current Members of Parliament
Former Members of Parliament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by by Andreas Bummel for the Inter Press Service

Earlier this month [July], the European Parliament adopted its annual recommendations on the European Union’s policy at the upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly that begins in September.

The document pointed out that the EU “should play a proactive part in building a United Nations that can contribute effectively to global solutions, peace and security, human rights, development, democracy and a rule-of-law-based international order.”

Among other things, the European Parliament called on EU governments to foster a debate “on the topic of establishing a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly with a view to increasing the democratic profile and internal democratic process of the organisation and to allow world civil society to be directly associated in the decision-making process.”

For more than twenty years the European Parliament has been pushing for a UN Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA). Six years ago it called on EU governments to promote its establishment.

The Council’s working group on the UN had a brief internal discussion at the time and concluded that the creation of a UNPA would imply a modification of the UN’s Charter which was considered unrealistic. It was also said that it would be a paradox for the UN to establish a UNPA since there are member states that do not have a democratically elected parliament. Finally, the point was made that a UNPA would entail high costs that the UN and governments would be unable to bear.

The Council did not engage with the parliament or anyone else pertaining these and other arguments. Its consideration of the issue was superficial. Ironically, it is easier for the UN to create a UNPA than to add just one single seat to the UN Security Council. Other than the Council seemed to believe, while the latter indeed requires an amendment of the Charter, the former clearly does not.

A UNPA can be created according to Article 22 which allows the General Assembly to establish subsidiary bodies as it deems necessary to fulfill its work. A UNPA could be seen as part of the assembly’s “revitalization”, a topic that has been pursued for long but did not yield much results so far.

Each year, Freedom House in Washington D.C. publishes its assessment of democracy in the world and today nearly two thirds of UN member states are considered to be “electoral democracies”. The foundation warns, however, that democracy is increasingly under threat by populist and nationalistic forces as well as authoritarian powers.

Proponents of a UNPA keep pointing out that giving parliamentarians a voice at the UN would help strengthening democracy especially in countries where it is still weak and under pressure. Opposition politicians certainly would benefit from a seat in a UNPA and the international exposure that would go along with it.

(continued in right column)

Proposals for Reform of the United Nations: Are they sufficiently radical?

(continued from left column)

After all, it has been a key argument that if the UN’s promotion of democracy is to be credible, the world organization itself needs to democratize as well. The establishment of a UNPA could also be understood as a response to Sustainable Development Goal 16. SDG 16 targets include the development of “effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels” and ensuring “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” Why should the UN, of all things, be excluded from this?

A UN parliamentary body could be a useful complement to the High-Level Political Forum on sustainable development in order to review the implementation of the SDGs.

At the beginning, a UNPA need not be a monumental investment. It depends on the specifics. So far, neither the Council of the EU or anyone else has come up with a thorough calculation. How can you argue that the costs would be too high if you never calculated them in the first place?

Under US President Donald Trump multilateralism and UN funding are under threat. This should be a wake-up call. To a large degree, a UNPA would be educational. It would bring the UN closer to lawmakers in the capitals and could help strengthen budgetary support of UN member states. In the long run, strengthening the UN’s democratic profile could turn out to be a good investment.

When she was an Italian deputy, the EU’s High Representative on Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, endorsed a UNPA and last year she confirmed that she still believes that it “could be a very useful tool.”

For a long time, EU governments have been ignoring the European Parliament’s endorsement of a UNPA. Will it be different this time?

Although a debate on this topic is not unrealistic, it is premature to expect that there will be a formal push in the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly. Most UN member states, including those from the EU, never looked into the concept of a UNPA in a serious way and will have to do their homework first.

Support like it was expressed by Malta’s foreign minister George Vella, who was succeeded last month, or by the cabinet of Italy’s foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni, who is now Italy’s Prime Minister, was the exception.

In May an informal meeting in New York hosted by the Canadian UN mission in collaboration with the international Campaign for a UNPA brought together representatives of 12 governments for a briefing on the proposal. This was a sign of growing interest.

More such informal meetings seem to be the most likely way forward for the time being. In the process, several EU governments – and other UN member states – may declare their support in one way or another which eventually could bring it on the EU’s and the UN’s agenda.

In particular, it will be interesting to see what position the new French government under President Emmanuel Macron will take.

The author, Andreas Bummel, is Director of Democracy Without Borders and Coordinator of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by the Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly [highlights by CPNN]

At an event convened by Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) in The Hague on May 15, representatives of regional parliaments, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) and academia came together to explore mechanisms to increase democratic representation and accountability of the United Nations.

Click on photo to enlarge

The Roundtable that was hosted by the House of Representatives of the Netherlands with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands provided an opportunity to exchange ideas and to assess options like the creation of a UNPA or an improvement of existing mechanisms. The opening remarks were delivered by the even’s co-hosts Pieter Omtzigt, a member of the Dutch House of Representatives, and Nico Schrijver, member of the Dutch Senate, both of which are also members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The first panel was started with a presentation by Andreas Bummel, coordinator of the UNPA Campaign, who stressed the need for creating a formal parliamentary body at the UN that would provide new space for members of parliament to be involved in the UN’s work. He said that the campaign’s goal was a UNPA vested with distinctive rights and powers that could be created, in a first step, by the UN General Assembly based on Article 22 of the UN Charter. He suggested that the apportionment of seats should be based on the principle of “degressive propotionality” which means that on a sliding scale smaller states would get more seats per capita than larger ones.

According to the second speaker, Anda Filip, Director of External Relations at IPU, the IPU already attempts to bring the voices of parliaments and parliamentarians to the UN and its agenda. She said that going through the IPU as an institution separate from the UN would maintain a clear separation of powers and promote independence and autonomy. She suggested that existing tools provided for by the IPU should be strengthened instead of creating new institutions.

Hans Köchler, Professor emeritus at the University of Innsbruck and President of International Progress Organization, elaborated on the democratic deficit at the UN, in particular with respect to the Security Council and the veto privilege of its five permanent members. He argued that a UNPA would represent an important step towards making the UN more democratic and raised the idea that such a new body might be better suited to monitor and oversee actions and decisions of the Security Council.

(continued in right column)

Proposals for Reform of the United Nations: Are they sufficiently radical?

(continued from left column)

Subsequently, Charles Santiago, a member of parliament from Malaysia, shared his experiences as legislator and chair of the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) whose objective is to investigate and raise awareness of human rights violations in the Asian South Eastern states. In particular, he elaborated on the difficulties of establishing an inter-parliamentary assembly with consultative powers within ASEAN, given that member states insist on the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs.

The second session on lessons-learned from regional parliaments and organizations was opened and facilitated by Margareta Cederfelt, member of parliament from Sweden, Chair of PGA’s International Council and member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). As an introduction, Mrs. Cederfelt briefly explained the mandate of the OSCE which consists of 57 participating states from Canada to Mongolia.

Among other things, the panelists discussed the added benefits of regional parliaments and the challenges that arise from working in both regional and national parliament at the same time. According to Felipe Michelini, a former member of parliament from Uruguay and of the Latin-American Parliament, it was PGA and not regional parliaments that helped mobilize legislators so that Latin-American countries would join the International Criminal Court despite pressure from the US against doing so.

The Vice-President of the Pan-African Parliament (PAP), Bernadette Lahai, shared her experiences in the African parliamentary body and as a member of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, a transregional parliamentary body created to democratize the framework of development cooperation. She discussed the structure of PAP, how members are elected and the roles they fulfill. Based on this she provided examples of the roles that a UNPA could play such as monitoring implementation processes and making recommendations to the UN General Assembly. She suggested that the preparations for the creation of a new parliamentary body at the UN would benefit from studying the powers and operations of existing international parliamentary bodies.

The second session ended with remarks from Niels Blokker, a Professor at Leiden University and former Deputy Legal Advisor at the Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs, who presented his research on different types of international parliamentary bodies. With regard to a UNPA he raised questions such as whether each state should have the same number of MPs or if it should vary by population size or whether or not the body should have budgetary or legislative powers.

The event was concluded by Mr. Schrijver and David Donat Cattin, Secretary General of PGA. As PGA’s summary of the event points out, they highlighted “the necessity of parliamentary representation in the form of a decision-making or advisory body to the UN.” At the same time, they emphasized the importance of further examining existing methods and their effectiveness. Participants were called upon to engage with this topic at the national and international levels, in particular, to determine which existing models of regional parliamentary bodies may serve as inspiration for a UNPA.