Current issue of Kingston Peace News
What does the Non-Proliferation Treaty need?
Answer: Our support and lots of it.
Agreeing with something Norman Lamont says? I never expected to find myself
in that embarrassing situation and in fact it's taken nuclear weapons
to produce my change of heart. Lord (goodness me) Lamont recently pointed
out a bit of a discrepancy in Western policy: Dr A Q Khan of Pakistan
has admitted selling nuclear know-how to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
Perhaps to others too he forgot to mention. What does the West do? Say
"OK - but don't do it again". On the other hand we invaded Iraq
because our government said it thought there were Weapons of Mass destruction
there. With regard specifically to nuclear weapons the Government more
or less admitted there weren't any but pointed out that Iraq might have
been tempted to develop them at some stage.
So what does the UK Government actually think - and do - about non-proliferation?
There are about 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world - the equivalent of
200,000 Hiroshimas. It seems to me every sensible person should be working
to stop the spread of these weapons and to get rid of the existing ones.
Actually there is a treaty called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
usually referred to as the NPT, which aims to do just that. The world's
six billion plus inhabitants would certainly be better off without nuclear
weapons and that includes the small number of people working in the nuclear
industry. Finding another job - particularly if you are a skilled person
which most of them are - is a lot better than trying to survive in a nuclear
desert.
To my shame I knew very little about the NPT before attending an excellent
study day on peace treaties organised by Christian CND in February. The
Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed back in 1970. It has been signed by
189 UN members, including the UK and the USA, but with the exception of
Pakistan, India and Israel. North Korea had signed the treaty but has
threatened to withdraw.
Campaigner George Farebrother said "The NPT is essentially a nuclear
disarmament treaty. Its central pillar, Article Vl of the treaty, obliges
its signatories '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'."
Although the US and Russia have destroyed a large number of their nuclear
weapons and carried out various other actions to reduce the risk of the
use of nuclear weapons non-proliferation does not seem to have been a
priority. However in 1995 a conference of the NPT signatories took a fresh
look at the situation and decided to have a major review once every five
years of the steps being taken to make non-proliferation a reality.
In 1998 eight countries (Brazil, Egypt Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia,
South Africa, and Sweden) formed the New Agenda Coalition. The Coalition
made a declaration demanding 'the speedy, final and total elimination
of nuclear weapons'. Resolutions sponsored by the coalition have been
passed in the UN General Assembly with overwhelming majorities which required
among other things the five major nuclear powers to take specific steps
towards disarmament.
The 2000 NPT Review made some major advances including getting agreement
on a radical 13 step programme to bring about implementation. This programme
endorses the demand of Article Vl that the nuclear weapon states get rid
of their nuclear arsenals, emphasizes the vital importance of speedy ratification
of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and suggests a wide range
of other measures on the path to complete disarmament. Campaigners at
the 2000 Review felt major advances had been made with even the nuclear
weapons states signing up to the 13 step programme. The fear is that in
light of the current world situation this progress may be lost at the
2005 NPT Review Conference. Of course in the view of any reasonable person
non-proliferation is even more urgent now than it has ever been.
What can we do? Christian CND has a big campaign to publicise the need
for progress to be made at the 2005 Review and certainly for no backsliding.
This campaign includes a London walk in May this year calling at the embassies
of the Nuclear Weapon States and asking what they are doing to implement
their commitments to get rid of nuclear weapons, and visiting the embassies
of the New Agenda Coalition countries to congratulate them.
Abolition 2000 Europe aims to enlist the support of MEPs and is collecting
pledges from individuals to back up its lobbying. The Acronym Institute
(www.acronym.org.uk) produces brilliant information on the NPT negotiations
and all the work done in between the major Reviews.
Apparently too it's possible to join activists in New York next year at
the 2005 Review Conference, attend some of the sessions and help put pressure
on the negotiators. According to people who attended the last review it's
an amazing and inspiring experience. So for those who like to make their
holiday plans early and who feel this might be an interesting change from
painting the living room/a fortnight in the Seychelles start planning
now. However I'm afraid the KPC banner features on too many security videos
so maybe if we want to get through customs we would have to leave it behind.
Closer to home while signing up to non-proliferation the UK is planning
to upgrade its own nuclear weapons. This involves major developments at
Aldermaston including, it is thought, the production of so-called mini-nukes
for a 'first-use' strategy and upgraded forms of testing equipment. In
future with new equipment we will be able to test models of nuclear weapons
without contravening the test ban treaty. So the UK is planning for the
'next generation' of nuclear weapons. That's why I joined the march to
Aldermaston to say in the words of the Harry Enfield character "No!
No!" We don't need these weapons and we have to get rid of them.