What's New

Previous Events

November 2005 Update by Steve Leeper, Mayors for Peace

A bit of background

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are history, but the threat of nuclear weapons is not. The US and Russia still have thousands of warheads aimed at each other, many of which are set to “launch on warning.” Thus, fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, we still live in a world where a handful of human beings look at computer screens, make judgments about what is a missile launching a weather satellite and what is an enemy attack, then decide whether or not to start a nuclear war.

To make matters worse, the so-called “war on terror” is far from over and could easily escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. On December 26, 2002, Abu Shihad El-Kandahari announced: “The coming days will prove that Kaedat el-Jihad [the Al-Qaeda organization] is capable of turning America into a sea of deadly radiation, and this will prove to the world that the end is at hand.... Yes, we will destroy America and its allies, because they have used their power for evil against the weak.”

In an interview in Vienna (April 2005), International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said of al Qaeda, "They were actively looking into acquiring a nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction." He went on to say, "The more nuclear weapons that exist, the more threat we are facing. And the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more danger we are facing. We can't afford one single lapse in the system of security of nuclear material or nuclear weapons."

Meanwhile, in 2002 the Bush Administration issued a new US Nuclear Posture Review. This policy statement clearly revealed that the US intends to rely on nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future and is actually developing new nuclear weapons. In fact, these new nuclear weapons are meant to be usable in combat. This official US policy document went on to list seven nations (Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria) against which the use of nuclear weapons is being planned, and went so far as to list the three situations in which nuclear weapons might be used:

  • Nuclear weapons could be deployed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack,
  • retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and
  • In the event of surprising military developments.

Thus, US policy no longer limits nuclear weapons to a deterrence role. They are combat weapons for use in the war on terrorism.

So here’s the situation

Al Qaeda is saying that it has or is going to get nuclear weapons and destroy the United States. The United States government is saying that they will use nuclear weapons preemptively to keep that from happening. Most other governments are saying the time has come to get rid of nuclear weapons and make it impossible for anyone to make one.

We know what “most governments” are saying because they say it at the UN in a body called the First Committee. This First Committee is actually the first committee established by the UN General Assembly; its task is to work toward disarmament and international security. The First Committee met this year from October 3 to November 2, and here are three of the 13 resolutions it passed regarding nuclear weapons and the voting results:

L.26/Rev.1 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) [Mexico] -- 149 yes -1 no -4 abstain

This resolution, sponsored by Mexico, called for quick implementation of the CTBT. The single no vote was the United States.

L.4 Towards a nuclear-free world: Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments [South Africa for New Agenda Coalition] -- 148-3-9

This resolution called for all nations to quickly eliminate all nuclear weapons. It specifically calls for Israel, Pakistan, and India to eliminate their nuclear weapons and enter the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon states. The three no votes were Israel, Pakistan, and India. The US abstained.

L.28** Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons [Japan] -- 166-2-7

As usual, Japan introduced a resolution calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons. As usual, only India and the United States voted against.

Information on all 13 resolutions can be found at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com05/res/resindex.html
For an excellent report on the 2005 First Committee meeting go to: www.acronym.org

The UN Standoff

In the First Committee this year, most of the resolutions pressed for control and/or elimination of nuclear weapons. Most passed by overwhelming majorities, and the United States was always abstaining or on the losing side, often casting the only “no” vote. Of all the resolutions passed by the First Committee, potentially the most important was L 59 Rev 1, the Report of the Disarmament Commission. This resolution accepted a plan of action for the UN Disarmament Commission which will meet from April 10 to 28, 2006. The resolution calls for all procedural matters to be agreed prior to the meeting so the full three-weeks can be devoted entirely to substantive work. In addition, the basis for that substantive work is a preliminary agreement that one of the commission’s two working groups will address: “Recommendations for nuclear disarmament and the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects, in particular for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament.” This resolution was approved on November 1, the last day of voting, and it was approved without a vote (meaning, by consensus). The United States allowed the measure to pass without a vote, but excused itself from the consensus.

Why is this important?

For many years, international efforts toward nuclear disarmament (Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT], Conference on Disarmament [CD]) have been hamstrung by the consensus rule. These bodies were set up to require consensus at every step. That means no agenda can be set, no resolutions passed, and no action can be taken without complete consensus on every line of every document.

The UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) is not bound by the consensus rule. Although it has, out of habit, allowed itself to be bound by the customary effort to achieve consensus, its rules do not require consensus. Thus, when it meets April 10 to 28, 2006, it has the potential to set an agenda, pass resolutions, and make recommendations to the General Assembly by a vote.

This possibility was underscored by Mexico’s Ambassador De Alba. After the vote to accept the report of the UNDC, he stated his expectation that all negotiation regarding the agenda must be completed prior to the meeting, and an agenda would be adopted on April 10, the first day of the meeting, by a vote if necessary. No one stood to oppose him. This innocuous statement is the tip of an iceberg into which US nuclear policy may collide. If the UNDC, like the First Committee, begins voting, it will soon be clear for all to see that the vast majority of the world is trying desperately to liberate the world from the nuclear threat, while only a tiny handful of nations seek retain that threat.

How will the US react?

If the UN begins voting on nuclear disarmament, the United States will face a serious political dilemma. As the self-appointed global champion of democracy, the US government claims to support the rule of law and the right of the people to determine their fate. What, then, will it do when there is no longer any doubt that the vast majority of nations and people around the world want to be rid of the nuclear threat? Will the US accept the will of the majority expressed through a democratic process? Or will it turn its back on democracy and cling to its nuclear weapons?

Assuming that the US and perhaps a few other nuclear-weapon states decide that their nuclear weapons are more important than democracy, they will set up a serious dilemma for the rest of the world. Will the entire world continue to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation out of fear of US military and economic might? Or will it impose sanctions on the US for its illegal, undemocratic behavior?

To some extent, the struggle over nuclear weapons reflects a deeper struggle: Who is going to govern the world – the US or the UN? This political question raises an even deeper issue. Must nations forever treat each other as enemies, threatening each other with physical force, resolving our most serious conflicts by war? Or can we learn to resolve our international problems peacefully through dialogue, treaties, governmental institutions, and voting? Stay tuned!