John Duncan

« LIFTING THE NUCLEAR... | Main | Offline But Still... »

Thursday 05 February, 2009

Yesterday’s launch of the Policy Information Paper has prompted substantive comments on the Blog. We very much welcome this and I will respond very soon to the points raised.

The UK press coverage was equally good to see with articles in The Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Daily Mail. As I have commented in earlier posts, those of us at the negotiating front line need the public (and the media) to be engaged. One should never underestimate the difficulty of persuading those attached to the Status Quo that change is needed.

Proliferation of Nuclear weapons is as dangerous as climate change. It is perhaps a less visible threat, but the risk to the planet is equally serious. The fallout from just one nuclear accident (Chernobyl) still contaminates parts of Europe 20 years after it happened. The consequences of a Nuclear military exchange hardly bears thinking about. We need safe nuclear power and to take concrete steps towards a Nuclear Weapons Free World.

In today’s meeting of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva I gave a brief preview of the Policy Information Paper underlining that the objective we seek is a collective endeavour, that we do not underestimate the challenges ahead, nor the complexities of the task, but action there must be. The time when ambassadors could indulge in an elegant diplomatic dance on semantics is long past.

Posted at 20:09 05 February 2009 by John Duncan | Comments[5]

Share this with:

Comments:

Mr.John, I appreciate you comments on the dangers of nuclear proliferation and you had stressed for safe nuclear power and a nuclear weapons free world. You had highlighted the consequences of nuclear accident and nuclear military exchanges, but you had missed out another grave potential threat of nuclear arsenal slipping out to the hands of the terrorists which the United States Government fear most. The world and the IAEA should be vigilant and ensure that nuclear weapons doesnt reach to the hands of the extremists. Regards / Venkat.

Posted by VENKATRAGAVAN M SANTHANAM on February 06, 2009 at 01:24 AM GMT #

Dear Mr.Duncan It was disappointing that the FCO's policy and information paper made no mention of Trident, particularly in view of recent comments from senior retired military men. Please could you tell me why, if the UK insists that nuclear weapons are essential to its defence, others should not feel the same? This applies particularly to Iran which has as near neighbours five nuclear-armed states - Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Israel. I stress that I am NOT advocating nuclear weapons for Iran. We have to abolish them all before there is a terrible accident. Jenny Maxwell, Court Cottage, Walford SY7 0JT

Posted by Jenny Maxwell on February 06, 2009 at 08:09 AM GMT #

Dear Venkat and Jenny Thank you for your comments Venkat you are absolutely right to highlight the importance of preventing terrorists obtaining nuclear material. The government very much shares this concern as you will see if you look for example at pages 4, 5 and 8 of the paper, and it is one of the 3 sets of conditions which need to be put in place. On Jenny’s point I am not sure why you consider that the paper makes no mention of Trident. It is specifically discussed on page 29. I agree that this is rather brief, but the purpose of this latest paper is not to set out the case for Trident, rather the paper tries to explain how we can establish conditions in which all nuclear weapons can be abolished. The UK is committed to that goal. Russia and China have also signed up to a process of disarmament under the NPT, whereas some of the countries you mention have not given any such commitment , while some are actively blocking progress on the steps we all need to take to get to that goal, while others are widely suspected of going in a completely different direction. For more on Trident specifically you might want to have a look at the fact sheets on the FCO website. The link is www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/trident-factsheet

Posted by John Duncan on February 06, 2009 at 06:35 PM GMT #

'Proliferation of Nuclear weapons is as dangerous as climate change' this may well be true however creating a hierarchy of dangers is not ideal. Take the Munich Security Conference you could argue military security is more important than economic issues but both are linked. Nuclear proliferation is of course dangerous but putting it in league table terms is not helpful.

Posted by shane dillon on February 09, 2009 at 09:42 AM GMT #

This extract from IAEA Secretary-General EL Baredai's article in Sueddeutsche* provides food for thought in light of the arguments assembled in the new FCO paper on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. "Imagine this: a country or group of countries serves notice that they plan to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT in order to acquire nuclear weapons, citing a dangerous deterioration in the international security situation. "Don't worry," they tell a shocked world. "The fundamental purpose of our nuclear forces is political: to preserve peace and prevent coercion and any kind of war. Nuclear weapons provide the supreme guarantee of our security. They will play an essential role by ensuring uncertainty in the mind of any aggressor about the nature of our response to military aggression." "Withdrawing from the NPT is a drastic step, but every state party to the Treaty has the right to do so, giving a mere three months' notice, if it decides that "extraordinary events? have jeopardized its supreme interests. The international uproar that would follow such a move is predictable. Yet the rationale I have just cited to justify nuclear weapons is taken from NATO's current Strategic Concept." *Full text available in English at: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/629/457290/text/

John Duncan

Ambassador for Multilateral Arms Control & Disarmament

Search

Feeds

Tag cloud

Blogroll

Evaluation

FCO websites

Related websites

Twitter