John Duncan

Ambassador for Multilateral Arms Control & Disarmament

FCO Logo
Sunday 31 May, 2009

A WORLD FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A DECISIVE MONTH

May 2009 saw the first steps to break the “Decade of Stalemate” in the International Organisations responsible for Nuclear Disarmament and Non Proliferation.  On Friday the Conference on Disarmament, after a 12 year stalemate, agreed to begin negotiating a new treaty to ban the production of radioactive material for nuclear weapons. The CD is the only international forum where all the countries with nuclear weapons sit together to decide on Arms Control and Disarmament.

My Blog of 16 May reported the breakthrough in the New York meetings of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) again after more than a decade.

But this month also saw North Korea (also a CD member) test a nuclear weapon and missile delivery systems; definitely a step backwards on the road to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons.

Are the two directly related? Probably not; although the Korean test certainly underlined the damage done by more than 10 years of interminable wrangling over procedure in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and in the NPT.

Building a new global coalition as described by David Miliband and getting decision makers (and opinion formers) to appreciate the extent of global interdependence that Gordon Brown has talked about has been a long haul in Arms Control and Disarmament.

Success in Geneva this week under Algeria’s chairmanship was the result of a such an (informal) coalition. Countries as varied as Poland and South Africa, Mexico and Nigeria, Ireland and Indonesia; all willing to speak up, determined to make progress and refusing to be put off by the many obstacles. The UK has been part of that coalition sometimes to people’s surprise. But David Miliband has been talking about “The Global Hub” for some time now.

No progress would be possible without the political vision of both the current and past generation of world leaders over the past 3 years. We will continue to need that political momentum over the next 12 months as we prepare for the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

Have we broken the mould? Well clearly not. There is real concern about nuclear proliferation. More widely several generations of decision-makers and opinion-formers have based their professional careers on concepts such as the East West or North South divide and the interplay of 20th Century power politics defined by enemies and allies. Recent events only serve to reinforce such views. If military alliances will remain part of our uncertain world for some time to come, this way of viewing the world has to evolve. Today’s Britain as an avowedly multicultural society should recognise that more than most.

Links to media comment on the CD decision are on delicious. Dominic Asquiths blog on reaction to David Miliband’s speech.



  • Share this with:
Comments:

John Could you set out whether all the 108.000 kilogrammes of UK-owned plutonium in store or awaiting processing at Sellafield, will be included within the remit of the treaty? In particular, will the United Kingdom negotiate with the IAEA and Euratom to cancel article 14 of the tripartite UK-IAEA-Euratom "safeguards" agreement that presently permits the UK Government to withdraw any or indeed all the plutonium from being subject to safeguards, and thus fully available for military explosive use, should "national security" - as defined by the Government- require it. This withdrawal option loophole, contained in the voluntary safeguards agreements of all 5 nuclear weapons states party to the NPT, undermines any crediblity of NWSs in the fissban treaty negotiations. -Dr David Lowry former director, European Proliferation Information Centre

Posted by Dr David Lowry on June 06, 2009 at 01:14 AM BST #

David Thank for your latest comment. This is a detailed but important point. Of course the purpose of the blog is not to substitute for, or bypass the more traditonal route of Parliamentary Questions or letters to one's MP, where formal government postions on policy issues are usually posed and responded to. That said I will ask that your point is given a formal reply as soon as possible. John

Posted by John Duncan on June 08, 2009 at 08:28 PM BST #

John I note my first comment has not yet received an answer, and my second posting -an Early Day Motion - inexplicably still has not been posted. Dr David Lowry

Posted by Dr David Lowry on June 09, 2009 at 05:32 PM BST #

In my opinion, there was a connection between Obama's speech and the missile launch. The DPRK were not testing a missile so much as they were testing the words of a new President who had already announced that he would make a speech on that day calling for a nuclear weapon-free world. North Korea had claimed that the missile was to put a satellite in space, something the Indians had done just a year before without any outcry. North Korea stated, prior to the launch, that any criticism would provoke them to go nuclear again. Obama followed the pattern of previous administrations and criticised them that very day, and lo and behold, on May 25th they tested a nuclear weapon. In order to really achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, Obama has to start responding differently to nuclear conflicts like the one with North Korea and Iran. They need to be resolved in order to be able to go forward with disarmament and that means that the security concerns of the DPRK should be a priority for the US administration. The United Kingdom could support this view. Without wanting in any way to justify the aggressive behaviour of the DPRK, we repeatedly have shown them in the past that the way to receive attention is to have a tantrum. But if we look at the roller-coaster ride the Bush administration, Japan and South Korea have given them during the six party talks, promising them aid and withdrawing it repeatedly or adding new conditions, it is not surprising that the DPRK is responding so aggressively.

Posted by Xanthe Hall on June 11, 2009 at 04:40 PM BST #

Dear David Did you see my post of 8 June which I think answered your post the following day? As I said a Blog is not a short circuit for parliamentary scrutiny such as through letters to your MP or Parliamentary Questions. As a regular reader of the blog you will realise that my task is to negotiate and review/update treaties rather than to be the UK Spokesman on all matters nuclear. However a blog is also an effort to allow a greater degree of accountability and transparency. Colleagues in London have at my request provided the following in response to your comment of 6 June: Begins:The UK will be finalising its detailed approach to the FMCT negotiations in the near future but all our civil nuclear material is already under EURATOM safeguards and covered by the terms of our Voluntary Offer Agreement with the IAEA. We made clear in 1998 that, notwithstanding Article XIV of our VOA, as a matter of policy we would cease exercising our right to withdraw fissile material from safeguarded stocks for nuclear weapons and that future withdrawals would be limited to small quantities of mateirals not suitable for weapons purposes and that the details would be made public. We have acted accordingly since 1998 and the details have duly made been public. Information on withdrawals can be found on the HSE website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/safeguards/withdrawals.htm" ENDS I think this answers both your comments and shows that the UK has already taken action to address the point you raised.

Posted by John Duncan on June 12, 2009 at 09:05 PM BST #

John I did see your latest response. Thanks for requesting your London colleagues to make HMG's policy clear. There is, however, an important difference between ministers or officials of one administration making a unilateral policy announcement, and the incorporation of the intended purpose of such an announcement in a legally binding international treaty. I look forward to the formal transparent proposal from the United Kingdom to encode this 1998 unilateral gesture, positive as it is, in a formal fissile material cut-off treaty. David Lowry

Posted by Dr David Lowry on June 14, 2009 at 01:02 AM BST #

Hello Mr. John Duncan I think first, any disclosure could induce a Middle East arms race just as the Iranian nuclear program threatens to do. Since 2006, more than a dozen countries in the region including Egypt, Turkey, Algeria and member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council have been pursuing civilian nuclear energy, arguably as a hedge against developments in Iran. If Israel adopts an explicit nuclear doctrine, with or without joining the NPT, it may prompt these countries to develop nuclear programs even more quickly - virtually assuring that any non-proliferation goals of the Obama administration in the region are dead on arrival. Last year, the Arab League announced that Arab countries, all of which are signatories to the NPT, would walk away from it if Israel ever officially acknowledges it has nuclear weapons. Thanks & Kind Regards From David James

Posted by David James on June 15, 2009 at 08:48 AM BST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed

Search

Feeds

Technorati Profile

Tag cloud

Blogroll

Evaluation

FCO websites

Related websites

Twitter