A Hopeful Sign: IAEA Endorses Iran’s Nuclear Action Plan

Posted in Middle East, Nuclear Disarmament by staggm2014

A general view of the E3/EU+3 Iran Talks, 20 November 2013. UN Photo / Jean-Marc Ferré

The United Nations (UN) atomic watchdog has endorsed the plan to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. This is a major step forward in the ongoing mission to bring Iran in line with the UN aim of a non-nuclear age. Iran has always argued that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only, which it is free to pursue. However, some other countries (especially Israel) have contended that it is driven by military ambitions. This has been a matter of international concern since the discovery in 2003 that Iran had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years. This is in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, has urged the rest of the world to stop treating his country as a pariah state. He continued to assert that ‘Nuclear weapons have no place in our security strategy and Iran has no motivation to move in that direction’, he assured the world he (and Iran) is committed to a ‘constructive engagement’ with the international community. However, the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu later dismissed these claims asserting they prove to show nothing more than a ‘change in words and unchanging deeds.’ Yet, when Israel itself has a nuclear programme that is described as an ‘open secret’, it is no wonder that Israel has always felt a clandestine programme was under-way in Iran. Indeed Israel’s nuclear programme is one that the Western Powers have systematically avoided to mention. This could have much to do with the fact that many nations secretly sold Israel the material and expertise to make nuclear warheads, or turned a blind eye to its theft. These include today’s staunchest campaigners against proliferation, the US, France, Germany, Britain. Of course Israel, unlike Iran, never signed up to the 1968 NPT so could not violate it. However, this should not cloud our view of the seriousness that Iran itself may assign to the fact that Israel is a nuclear armed nation.

Regardless, the plan envisages the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) undertaking monitoring and verification of a series of ‘voluntary measures’ to be taken by Iran over a period of six months. it is hoped by the IAEA that the work undertaken by the Agency will provide an important contribution to resolving this important issue and will lead to further positive developments. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ‘warmly welcomes the interim agreement that has been reached in Geneva regarding the nuclear programme of Iran’. He again confirmed the UN’s ‘unswerving commitment’ to the aim of total nuclear disarmament. Having said all that, Iran has postponed talks due to be held in January until 8^th February, but regardless of this brief setback the USA has hailed Iran’s suspension of high-level uranium enrichment as an ‘unprecedented opportunity’ after a long stand-off that threatened to ignite yet another conflict in the Middle East. This must be seen as marking a substantial breakthrough in the ongoing struggle against nuclear proliferation and the threat to global peace and security it represents.

Finally, it is worth noting the impact that sanctions has had on the situation, they are a very complex and often divisive issue. There are reasonable arguments that they only impact on the innocent citizens and not those in power. However, Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation (AEOI), said in a televised report ‘the iceberg of sanctions against Iran is melting’. This partial lifting of sanctions will ease restrictions on trade in petrochemicals and precious metals as well as other areas of trade. This, in many ways shows the importance that a successful and committed policy of sanctions can have on states’ actions and policies. They are not always the most effective form of international relations. However, the statement from Ali Akbar Salechi shows that these sanctions and their lifting is a substantial issue for Iran, its leaders and population and as such must be seen as playing their part.

Finally, it is with some hope that this blog post is written, in a time when there is much to be concerned about in the region, with the situation in Syria being nothing less than horrific. With the situations in Ukraine and Egypt, South Sudan and Lebanon all suffering from a threat to their peace and hard-fought for democracy it is worth noting when there is a glimmer of positivity in the realm of international peace.

The Meaning of the International Day Against Nuclear Tests

Posted in Nuclear Disarmament by UNA Voices

Secretary-General Visits Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site

August 29, 2013 marked the third anniversary of the ‘International Day against Nuclear Tests’. The initiative began when the Republic of Kazakhstan proposed a resolution which would mark the closing of the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test site which had closed on August 29, 1991, forty two years after the first Soviet Nuclear test.[1] The resolution (resolution 64/35) was passed unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on December 2, 2009.

Three years after this resolution we are facing a different world. The West is awaiting a UN report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Tensions between the West and the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea have increased, after a nuclear weapons test in February of this year. But this issue has since faded from public consciousness. At such an important time it is apt that we have this day to remind us of what we’ve accomplished and what has yet to be accomplished.

The Semipalatinsk test site was one of the main locations for Soviet nuclear weapon tests. The IAEA estimates that “During the period 1949-89 the former Soviet Union conducted total about 460 nuclear weapons tests within the test site. They included explosions that were conducted on the surface or in the atmosphere…Starting in 1961, more than 300 test explosions were conducted underground.”[2] The closure of such a significant site was an important step forwards for Nuclear Disarmament and reducing tensions between the East and West.

In 1996 countries began signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which took the step of stopping nuclear weapons tests further. Sadly, however, the CTBT still has not entered into force and is waiting on countries, particularly North Korea and the United States, to sign and ratify it. Instead the world is left in an uneasy limbo, where nuclear testing is viewed as wrong, but states outside of the CTBT are not obligated to follow it, and therefore repercussions are problematic issues. Perhaps the most salient example of this would be the reaction, or rather lack of reaction to North Korea’s nuclear tests earlier this year. Next month there will be a Conference on Facilitating Entry into Force of the CTBT (or Article XIV conference) at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.[3] Perhaps this will make some progress towards a world where nuclear weapons are not tested.

Nuclear testing served three important goals. Firstly, it demonstrated that the bomb design worked. Secondly, it demonstrated the military power of a country’s nuclear force. Thirdly, it was a useful political tool; used at the right time a test, or lack of a test, would convey a message to the other side during the tensions of the Cold War. The lack of testing has helped reduce tensions and perhaps signified that nuclear weapons are not the great weapon that they were once seen to be. As the world focuses on the Syrian crisis and the usage of chemical weapons, a reminder of the progression we’ve made with nuclear weaponry seems suitable.

This day, against nuclear testing, reminds us of how far we’ve come, but how far we have yet to go.

Elizabeth Dunkerley

[1] United Nations, International Day Against Nuclear Tests. Available from: http://www.un.org/en/events/againstnucleartestsday/ [accessed 29 August 2013]

[2] IAEA, The Semipalatinsk Test Site, Kazakhstan. Available from: http://www-ns.iaea.org/appraisals/semipalatinsk.asp [accessed 29 August 2013]

[3] CTBTO, AXIVC13. Available from: http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/article-xiv-conferences/2013-conference-on-facilitating-the-entry-into-force-of-the-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-united-nations-new-york-usa/ [accessed 29 August 2013]

13Aug2013

Can the Genie be put back in the bottle? Nuclear disarmament, an eternal struggle

Posted in Nuclear Disarmament by staggm2014

Nuclear disarmament is a live issue at the present time with the recent anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Such man-made devastation in a single moment is only possible via these most powerful and terrible weapons. It is for this reason that the campaign for nuclear disarmament is and must always be an integral part of the United Nations mission. As Ban Ki-moon recently stated “We must eliminate all nuclear weapons in order to eliminate the grave risk they pose to our world”. This risk is not only from their use. It is also from the threat of their use and the fear, uncertainty and instability this invokes in the international community. However, the science that created this threat can never be undiscovered, the engineering and technical expertise may be vital for our future, and the industrial capacity to build a nuclear weapon is likely only to be lost as the result of mass nuclear war (or some other global catastrophe). What then can be done? The only part of the puzzle left open to our influence and able to prevent a repeat of what was seen in Japan 68 years ago is ourselves. We must peruse the goal that American Presidents have desired since their first use, the total elimination of nuclear weapons. This is easier said than done.

America has an extensive arsenal of nuclear weapons that it could choose to decommission, vastly decreasing overall global numbers. Together with Russia they hold 95% of all nuclear weapons. However, Obama talks only of decreasing their numbers, retaining 1’000 and only if Russia would reciprocate. Britain for its part is seemingly determined to retain its place as a nuclear power with David Cameron referring to it as an “insurance policy”. And here lies the problem. Nuclear weapons are still seen as serving the national interest. Those who have them keep them and those who do not, try to obtain them precisely because they are seen to serve a purpose. They are believed to insure a countries security and insure one will not suffer the fate of those annihilated Japanese cities. However, as Ban Ki-moon asserts, “we must educate the world on the benefits of disarmament” and dispel the myth that “security is achieved through the pursuit of military dominance and threats of mutual annihilation”.

Obama rejects “the nuclear weaponisation that North Korea and Iran may be seeking”. However, it is inevitable that countries so often threatened by the foremost nuclear power (and the only country to have deployed them) are themselves going to seek their own nuclear deterrent. It is unclear how we can argue against this logic. As the major nuclear powers, America and Russia must create the political climate and international conditions that would eliminate the perceived threat and consequently perceived need for such weapons by any country, including their own. International cooperation is the only way to peace and security.

The many treaties concerning nuclear weapons must be given their proper place in international law. They must be observed by all those currently possessing nuclear weapons. The “New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty” (START) is a welcomed step. It engages the two states that control the vast majority of weapons, America and Russia. This is a major victory for the disarmament movement as it successfully gained the support of the US political system. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) however, long after its ratification is no closer to one of its goals, the disarmament of the five permanent Security Council members. Indeed, many more states have since become the bearers of the nuclear menace with more likely to follow. This is in direct conflict with the aim of the “Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty” (CTBT) which is meant to prevent new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. This treaty should be a vital part of international law and as such give a firm code to abide by and enforce. However, it is still awaiting ratification by some key countries including America, China, Israel, India and Pakistan, preventing it coming into force. While 159 states have already ratified this treaty (including Russia) the lack of America is a real blow. It undermines the international efforts of the United Nations and relevant international bodies to prevent the proliferation of these weapons. It also undermines the US position towards Iran and North Korea, opening the US to the charge of hypocrisy.

Ultimately the answer lies in political will and the continued pressure being applied by the United Nations and the many NGO’s dedicated to this issue. The global citizenry must also pressurize and call for their respective governments to carry through their commitments regarding this most pressing issue. The Secretary-General’s “five point proposal on nuclear disarmament” is just such a call, asking for the CTBT to be brought into law. If headed, this is a step we would all welcome. Even so, creating a climate of trust, peace and stability, in which possessing nuclear weapons is no longer seen as in the national interest will ultimately be needed to finally deal with the scourge of nuclear weapons. Although, it may be a threat that now found will never be lost, just forever controlled. However, we must always strive for a world devoid of the desire for such destructive power.

Michael Stagg

Sources.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45597&Cr=nuclear&Cr1=#.UgjCa22AeXw

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21579830-president-wants-scrap-nuclear-weapons-other-powers-do-not-obamas-lonely-quest

http://globalsolutions.org/prevent-war/nuclear-disarmament

http://globalsolutions.org/prevent-war/nuclear-disarmament/strategic-arms-reduction-treaty-start

http://globalsolutions.org/prevent-war/nuclear-disarmament/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-npt

http://globalsolutions.org/prevent-war/nuclear-disarmament/comprehensive-test-ban-treaty-ctbt

http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/status-of-signature-and-ratification/

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/sg5point.shtml

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45574&Cr=nuclear&Cr1=#.UgkfBW2AeXy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735