Nuclear Law & Disorder

« Previous | Next »

by Douglas Roche

Page 2 of 2

New Agenda, New Bridge

Security Council Resolution 1540, requiring all States to take measures to prevent non-State actors from acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, is a helpful step to stemming proliferation. The Proliferation Security Initiative of the US seeks to interdict the transfer of nuclear materials on the high seas. The constant monitoring by the IAEA, where it is able to operate, gives a measure of confidence. Yet, as Russia conceded at the NPT Third Preparatory Meeting in 2004, "Terrorists are smart and resourceful and are willing to go to any length to get hold of the weapons of mass destruction production components in order to strike at innocent people." The eminent physicist, Frank von Hippel, says "nothing could be simpler" than for terrorists to obtain highly enriched uranium and set off an explosive device with power equal to that of the Hiroshima bomb.

The task awaiting the 2005 Review of the NPT is to convince the nuclear-weapons States that the only hope of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons is to address nuclear disarmament with the same eagerness. This is precisely the stance taken by Foreign Ministers of the New Agenda Coalition (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden), who recently wrote: "Nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament are two sides of the same coin and both must be energetically pursued."

The New Agenda, which showed impressive leadership at the 2000 NPT Review in negotiating the 13 Practical Steps with the nuclear-weapons States, is now clearly reaching out to other middle power States to build up what might be called the "moderate middle' in the nuclear weapons debate. The New Agenda resolution presented to United Nations General Assembly was much leaner and more attractive to the non-nuclear States of NATO than previously.

This strategy was rewarded when eight NATO States - Belgium, Canada, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway and Turkey - voted for the resolution, an action which effectively built a bridge between NATO and the New Agenda. The overall vote was 135 in favour, 5 opposed and 25 abstentions. Although the three Western nuclear-weapons States maintained their opposition to the New Agenda's overtures, the new "bridge" shows that a group of centrist States may be in position to produce a positive outcome for the 2005 NPT Review.

The priorities for action, as identified by the New Agenda, would not be difficult to achieve provided the nuclear-weapons States cooperate on: early entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons and non-development of new types of nuclear weapons; negotiation of an effectively verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty; establishment of a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear weapons at the Conference on Disarmament; and compliance with the principles of irreversibility and transparency and development of verification capabilities.

A new common front may yet be able to inject new life into the only worldwide legal instrument we have to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

But it is precisely this co-operation, or rather lack of it, between the nuclear haves and have nots that is the central issue. There has been little co-operation in the 35-year history of the NPT. Will the recognition of new dangers finally jolt governments into action? Much will now depend on the actions taken by the re-elected Bush Administration in the US.

It seems to me that the only way to stop the NPT erosion is for a new burst of energy to be shown by the middle power States - the New Agenda, non-nuclear NATO, the European Union and a few other like-minded States - to shore up and influence the centre positions in the nuclear weapons debate. Even though India, Pakistan and Israel continue to shun the NPT, it is also in the interests of these countries to cooperate in implementing the New Agenda's list of priorities.

Can we expect this burst of energy if parliamentarians and the public remain docile? A new common front of an awakened civil society and caring middle power States may yet be able to inject new life into the only worldwide legal instrument we have to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Douglas Roche, O.C. is a Senator Emeritus in Canada, former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament, Chairman of the Middle Powers Initiative, and author of "The Human Right to Peace." E-mail: djroche@shaw.ca.

« Previous | Next »

Page 2 of 2