UNA Edinburgh Conference report. NATO's New Strategic Concept and Global Zero

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nigel Quinton on November 10, 2010 at 12:32

Martin

Many thanks for posting this - very informative.

Permalink Reply by Rebekah Gronowski on November 10, 2010 at 21:25

Martin, this is an excellent summary of the day's events and thank you for producing it. I regret that I have not been able to add to it at this time - hopefully I will be able to contribute something later.

As far as the issue I raised within my Round table discussion group, I did feel that there were underlying questions which were not being answered. I also felt considerably marginalised by that experience, especially when more than one person asked me where I had got my information and that it was incorrect. I had said that we had been informed that the decommissioning of Trident (for example) was subject to the agreement of the other 28 States within NATO and we in the UK could not get rid of our nuclear capability without the consent of NATO as a whole. As Martin says, I was told in the Round table discussion group that any agreement on Trident was between the UK and the US and that the UK has assigned it to NATO as part of the nuclear capability.

I am certainly of the opinion that the whole day, whilst excellent in so many ways, left a great many more questions in my mind than answers. We have been promised a Report of the day's discussions by Thursday last - we still await this. When we receive it, I am sure that both Martin and I will have a great deal to say about what took place on the day.

Permalink Reply by Rebekah Gronowski on November 11, 2010 at 7:34

We have received the Report this morning and I am sure Martin will put up a link to it.

Personally, I do not recognise the contents of the discussion held in my Round table group as the same discussion at which I was present. There was certainly no mention whatever of the questions I raised -

1) Is it not time that all the member States of NATO were given the freedom to divest themselves of their Nuclear weapons is they so choose without seeking the "permission" or agreement of the other 28 States? (This was the one where I was slammed down for having erroneous information).

2) Given the fact that the continued purpose of NATO needs to be scrutinised and its role re-defined, is it not time that NATO was re-named, especially in the light of the fact that it is fast becoming a group membership of "all-comers from everywhere"?! To continue to be called the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), otherwise known as the North Atlantic Alliance, is surely now a misnomer as membership of it is no longer confined to the countries surrounded by the North Atlantic area. NATO has too much control of the actions of its member States.

Attachments:

• Global_Zero_and_NATO_NSC_Report2[1].pdf, 270 KB

Permalink Reply by Martin Veart on November 15, 2010 at 21:24

Rebekah has already posted the report document but here is the link to the UNA site http://www.edinburghuna.co.uk/16.html


Rebekah Gronowski said:

We have received the Report this morning and I am sure Martin will put up a link to it.

Permalink Reply by Martin Veart on December 30, 2010 at 5:14

I have taken the liberty of publishing the Christmas letter from Professor Gains of the UNA Edinburgh as it makes interesting reading.

UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION
(Edinburgh Branch)

I have attached the Christmas Letter the Ministry of Defence sent in response to the Report of the UNA Conference sponsored by Malcolm Chisholm MSP at the Scottish Parliament,
The New NATO Strategic Concept and Global Zero
1. The response from the MOD, unlike the recent National Security Strategy, portrays a well-intentioned Government trying to muddle through to a world without nuclear weapons.
2. Our nuclear weapons will never be used: Start with the important ending to the opening paragraph of the MOD's response, " We would use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence, which includes the defence of our NATO Allies, and would not use any of our weapons contrary to international law. We and our NATO allies have made it clear that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote." Recall how the International Court of Justice advised that its Opinion was that it was difficult to imagine any circumstances when nuclear weapons could be used in accordance with International Law; the MOD's response is tantamount to a statement that our nuclear weapons will never be used.
3. However the statement in the third Paragraph of the MOD's letter, " the nuclear weapons which are assigned to NATO are all owned by nations who are recognised as being nuclear weapons states under the NPT..", is factually incorrect. Nuclear bombs originating in the US are stored on NATO bases in Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy and Turkey, all countries that signed the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states. At least until recently the first four of these countries flew the bombs in the their own planes with their own pilots. This appears to breach international law, breaking Articles I and II of the NPT and does not encourage other countries, notably India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, to believe we take the NPT as seriously as we should. In fact NATO prides itself on making decisions by consensus and "sharing the nuclear burden". Each of the 28 NATO countries has a veto on the use of the nuclear bombs and in this sense the US retains control of them and for that matter the UK needs to take its joint responsibility for their use very seriously.
4. Our nuclear weapons serve no military purpose: The MOD describes the role of our nuclear weapons in terms of the ultimate deterrent of an "adversary" or "potential adversary" and of risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and from state sponsored nuclear terrorism. The four "Tier One" Priority Risks listed by the Government's recent (October) National Security Strategy are: International Terrorism affecting the UK or its interests; Hostile attacks upon UK cyber space; A major accident or natural hazard; An international military crisis between states drawing in the UK and its allies. Apparently, as NATO has stated, we face no threats from hostile states. The terrorism we have experienced is not deterred by our possession of nuclear weapons and in the past NATO has declared that the nuclear bombs on NATO bases serve no military purpose. It is difficult to see which "Tier One" threat is met or what military purpose is served by our strategic nuclear weapons.
5. A world without nuclear weapons: The final paragraph of the MOD's response is heartening and constructive in that it suggests actions that match the Tier One threats to our security. Vadim Mitrofanov, head of the Foreign Policy Section at the Russian Embassy declared at the Scottish Parliament, "A world without nuclear weapons is not today's world minus nuclear weapons" (and he called to our attention the possibility of a treaty with Russia on the limitation of conventional arms - an agreement that might enable Russia to reduce the number of its nuclear bombs in Europe). Indeed. Ask yourself whom do you hate ? What might we do in future that would cause other peoples to hate us so much as to threaten our security ? In proceeding from the opening to the final paragraph of the MOD's letter one sees the UK's Foreign/Defence Policy in transition. In future we should not be thinking about "potential adversaries" but of how to work together with others to "prevent crisis, manage conflicts...." and solve jointly our common problems of security.

At the year's end the US ratified a programme to reduce the number of their strategic nuclear weapons to 1550 (still more than the number of the world's cities) and our own Government planned to reduce the number of our operational nuclear warheads from 160 to 120. This Spring, as a founder member of NIDOS, we look forward to the Edinburgh visit of the Minister for International Development and George Watson's College will promote what may well be the largest Model UN in the UK - a wonderful adventure in education. UNA is beginning to see what the world could be like.

(a.f.gaines@strath.ac.uk Edinburgh UNA, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Working Group)

Permalink Reply by Rebekah Gronowski on December 31, 2010 at 8:59

It might be helpful to have the actual text of the Treaty, so I am posting it here with the link to the relevant website.

 

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation  of

Nuclear Weapons ( NPT )

 

The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter referred to as the Parties to the Treaty,

 

Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to
take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,

 

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war,

 

In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,

 

Undertaking to co-operate in facilitating the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities,

 

Expressing their support for research, development and other efforts to further the application, within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards
system, of the principle of safeguarding effectively the flow of source and special fissionable materials by use of instruments and other techniques at certain strategic points,

 

Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear-weapon
States,

 

Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in co-operation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

 

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear
disarmament,

 

Urging the co-operation of all States in the attainment of this objective,

 

Recalling the determination expressed by the Parties to the 1963 Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water in its Preamble to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end,

 

Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,

 

Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Article II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency
and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

 

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the
processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.

 

3. The safeguards required by this Article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.

 

4. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall conclude agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet the requirements of this Article either individually or together with other States in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Negotiation of such agreements shall commence within 180 days from the original entry into force of this Treaty. For States depositing their instruments of ratification or accession after the 180-day period, negotiation of such agreements shall commence not later than the date of such deposit. Such agreements shall enter into force not later than eighteen months after the date of initiation of negotiations.

Article IV

 

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

 

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article V

Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall be able to obtain such benefits, pursuant to a special international agreement or agreements, through an appropriate
international body with adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon States.

Negotiations on this subject shall commence as soon as possible after the Treaty enters into force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty so desiring may also obtain such benefits pursuant to bilateral agreements.

Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Article VII

Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.

Article VIII

1. Any Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary Governments which shall circulate it to all Parties to the Treaty. Thereupon, if requested to do so by one-third or more of the Parties to the Treaty, the Depositary Governments shall convene a conference, to which they shall invite all the Parties to the Treaty, to consider such an amendment.

2. Any amendment to this Treaty must be approved by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to the Treaty, including the votes of all nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, are members of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The amendment shall enter into force for each Party that deposits its instrument of ratification of the amendment upon the deposit of such instruments of ratification by a majority of all the Parties, including the
instruments of ratification of all nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, are members of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any other Party upon the deposit of its instrument of ratification of the amendment.

 

3. Five years after the entry into force of this Treaty, a conference of Parties to the Treaty shall be held in Geneva, Switzerland, in order to review the operation of this Treaty with a view to assuring that the purposes of the Preamble and the provisions of the Treaty are being realised. At intervals of five years thereafter, a majority of the Parties to the Treaty may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary Governments, the
convening of further conferences with the same objective of reviewing the operation of the Treaty.

Article IX

1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Treaty before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article may accede to it at any time.

2. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification and instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, which are hereby designated the Depositary Governments.

 

3. This Treaty shall enter into force after its ratification by the States, the Governments of which are designated Depositaries of the Treaty, and forty other States signatory to this Treaty and the deposit of their instruments of ratification. For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967.

4. For States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited subsequent to the entry into force of this Treaty, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The Depositary Governments shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or of accession, the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and the date of receipt of any requests for convening a conference or other notices.

 

6. This Treaty shall be registered by the Depositary Governments pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article X

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the Treaty.

Article XI

This Treaty, the English, Russian, French, Spanish and Chinese texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Depositary Governments.

 

Duly certified copies of this Treaty shall be transmitted by the Depositary Governments to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, duly authorized, have signed this Treaty.

DONE in triplicate, at the cities of London, Moscow and Washington, the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:

 

On 11 May 1995, in accordance with article X, paragraph 2, the Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons decided that the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely (see decision 3).

 

Copyright 2000, Department for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations, Edinburgh Branch

 

We acknowledge the Department for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations, Edinburgh Branch which holds this Copyright.

 

The EUNA website is here - http://www.edinburghuna.co.uk/28.html 

l

Permalink Reply by Rebekah Gronowski on December 31, 2010 at 9:26

What is more worrying about the item posted by Martin is the letter from the MOD which accompanied it. As it is not yet in the public domain it cannot be reproduced in full, but I think it is importasnt to appraise you of this fact -

 

"NATO, as an Alliance, is not able to be a member of the UN and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the nuclear weapons which are assigned to NATO are all owned by nations who are recognised as being nuclear weapons states under the NPT and all NATO members are signatories to the NPT. For the first time, NATO had a representative from its International Staff as an official observer at the MAY 2010 Review Conference.

 

The Strategic Concept commits the Alliance to the goal of creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons – but reconfirms that, as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance."

 

Whilst each country has nuclear weapons on its territory, it cannot divest itself of those weapons with out the consent of all the other members of  NATO because NATO has declared itself to be a Nuclear Alliance. 

 

I am still of the opinion that the real role of NATO needs to be re-visited and re-appraised, especially as it does not just represent countries in and around the Atlantic - it is taking "all-comers" which, in my view,  makes a nonsense of NATO itself.

 

We, as a nation, are bound by its rules - do we still wish to remain so?