[DRAFT: Hiroshima Report 2013] 1-(2) Commitment to Achieve a World without Nuclear Weapons (introduction, sections A and B)

Following is a draft version, which is subject to be updated or revised. Your comments and feedbacks are welcome!

Back to the Contents

In 2013, no new, remarkable commitment toward a “total elimination of nuclear weapons” or a “world without nuclear weapons” was set out by NWS, NNWS or nuclear-armed states. As mentioned in the Hiroshima Report 2012, no country, including the NWS, openly opposes the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons or the vision of a world without nuclear weapons.[1] The Chairman’s Factual Summary of the 2013 NPT PrepCom also noted that the NPT parties “recalled their resolve…to achieve the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons in accordance with the objectives of the Treaty.”[2] However, it does not seem that nuclear-weapon/armed states actually set a goal of an early achievement of a world without nuclear weapons, or even consider their total elimination as a feasible, realistic goal. They have kept their position that their nuclear weapons continue to play important roles for their security policies at least in the foreseeable future. Deeper nuclear cuts in the short-run cannot be expected.

To achieve a total elimination of nuclear weapons, massive reductions by the United States and Russia as two nuclear superpowers are imperative. However, they have yet to commit a nuclear reduction to the level below 500 each, which was, for example, proposed in the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND) Report published in 2009,[3] nor even to the level below 1,000 each, where it is considered that the other nuclear-weapon/armed states may contemplate to join a multilateral nuclear weapons reduction process. At the time of writing, few nuclear-weapon/armed states are positive about starting such a process. For example, French President François Hollande stated that France would not be involved in the nuclear disarmament talks between Russia and the United States partly because France has “certain obligations within NATO, including nuclear containment” and partly because it “must provide independence of our territory, its security.”[4] China also stated that “[c]ountries with the largest nuclear arsenals bear special and primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament,”[5] indicating that Russian and the United States should reduce their nuclear weapons significantly, prior to the other nuclear-weapon/armed states’ participations in multilateral nuclear reductions.

A) Voting behavior on the UNGA resolutions on nuclear disarmament proposed by Japan, NAC and NAM

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) held in 2013 has also adopted the following resolutions: “United action towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons”[6] promoted by Japan; “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments”[7] proposed by the New Agenda Coalition (NAC); and “Nuclear disarmament”[8] of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) members. The voting behavior of the countries surveyed in this project on the three resolutions at the UNGA in 2013 is presented below.

Ø  “United action towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons”

²  Proposing: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, the United States and others

²  169 in favor, 1 Against (North Korea), 14 Abstentions (Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Syria and others)

Ø  “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments”

²  Proposing: Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and others

²  171 in favor, 7 Against (France, India, Israel, North Korea, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.), 5 Abstentions (China, Pakistan and others)

Ø  “Nuclear disarmament”

²  Proposing: Indonesia, Iran and others

²  122 in favor, 44 Against (Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the U.K., the U.S. and others), 17 Abstentions (Austria, India, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden and others)

B) Voting behavior on the UNGA resolutions calling for commitment of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention

The UNGA Resolution titled “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”[9] says “by commencing multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention” all states should implement the obligation in Article VI of the NPT. The voting behavior at the UNGA in 2013 is presented below.

Ø  Proposing: Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico and others

Ø  133 in favor, 24 Against (Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, the U.K., the U.S. and others), 25 Abstentions (Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and others)

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has conducted a study on states’ responses to the proposal of negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention in 2012. According to the ICAN report and its website, among the countries surveyed for this project, Belgium, France, Israel, Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States “don’t support” the NWC, while Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Sweden are “on the fence” (undecided).[10]

(Drafted by Hirofumi Tosaki, CPDNP)

---

[1] North Korea stated that “[i]t is humankind’s common will and desire to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons through its comprehensive and total elimination of nuclear weapons” at the UN General Assembly in September 2013. At the same time, it also argued that “if the denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula is to be accomplished, the U.S nuclear threats against the DPRK should be removed once and for all.” “Statement by North Korea,” at the General Debate of the First Committee of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, October 14, 2013.

[2] NPT/CONF.2015/PC.II/CRP.2, 2 May 2013.

[3] International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers, 2009, p. 187.

[4] “France Reluctant to be Involved in Russia-U.S. Nuclear Disarmament Talks,” Xinhua News Agency, February 28, 2013, http://www.nzweek.com/world/france-reluctant-to-be-involved-in-russia-u-s-nuclear-disarmament-talks-51805/.

[5] China, “Statement,” at the General Debate in the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference, April 22, 2013.

[6] A/RES/68/51, 5 December 2013.

[7] A/RES/68/39, 5 December 2013.

[8] A/RES/68/47, 5 December 2013.

[9] A/RES/68/42, 5 December 2013.

[10] Tim Wright, “Towards a Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons: A Guide to Government Position on a Nuclear Weapons Convention,” International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, January 2012; “National Positions on a Ban,”  International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, http://www.icanw.org/why-a-ban/positions/.