Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

United Nations High-Level Meeting on the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the United Nations Press Centre

Against a backdrop of rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula, speakers in the General Assembly today emphasized the urgent need for firm political will to advance towards the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Ministers and representatives of 46 Member States, delegations, the United Nations system and civil society took the floor during a day-long General Assembly high-level meeting held on September 26 to commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

“The only world that is safe from the use of nuclear weapons is a world that is completely free of nuclear weapons,” said Secretary‑General António Guterres, recalling that nuclear disarmament had been a principled objective of the United Nations from the very first Assembly resolution in 1946 to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which had opened for signature on 20 September.

In opening remarks, he noted, however, that the universally held goal of disarmament had been challenged of late, including by a series of provocative nuclear and missile tests by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Unequivocally condemning Pyongyang’s actions, he welcomed the Security Council’s firm response and its desire for a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution.

He went on to note significant steps by nuclear-weapon States — especially the Russian Federation and the United States — to cut back their arsenals.  However, subsequent expensive modernization campaigns and the absence of planned arsenal reductions made it hard to see how disarmament could move forward, he said.

General Assembly President Miroslav Lajčák (Slovakia) described the Treaty as a sign of determination.  Pledging to do everything possible during his term in office to realize the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world, he said discussions that had led to that instrument’s adoption should continue to ensure that all the differing views of Member States were properly addressed.

In the ensuing debate, speakers underlined the humanitarian and environmental consequences of an accidental or deliberate detonation of nuclear weapons, with some highlighting how money spent on producing, maintaining and modernizing them could be better invested in sustainable development.

Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Jorge Arreaza, Venezuela’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, urged Member States to support the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament at the United Nations no later than 2018.  “As long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of proliferation exists”, emphasizing the need for a new comprehensive and systematic approach to disarmament, he said.
Numerous delegates condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for violating international law and ignoring Security Council resolutions in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Many appealed for dialogue and a diplomatic solution, and for all sides to refrain from rhetoric that might inflame the situation.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

Japan’s delegate, recalling the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear tests were not only a grave and imminent threat, but also a challenge to the disarmament and non-proliferation regime.

Two of the five nuclear-weapon States shared their perspective, with China’s representative saying disarmament efforts must proceed in a step-by-step manner through existing mechanisms to ensure the participation of all countries.

His counterpart from the Russian Federation, asserting that the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons had been developed in haste, said nuclear-weapon States had had good reasons for not attending the recent conference.  The instrument ignored the existing reality and the opinion of nuclear-weapon States, he said, noting that it should have been adopted by consensus instead of through a vote.  The focus now should be on creating a favourable atmosphere for progress towards disarmament on the principle of equal, indivisible security for all States without exception.

Raising another concern, he voiced regret over recent attempts to torpedo the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme, stressing that all parties should continue to implement the agreement in good faith.  The same approach must be taken with regard to the tensions on the Korean Peninsula, the cause of which was not only Pyongyang’s possession of nuclear weapons, but the absence of an overall security mechanism for the region as a whole, he said.

Germany’s representative, underscoring his country’s commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), said disarmament efforts could only succeed if they took the prevailing security environment into account.  With like-minded partners, Germany advocated a step-by-step approach, with the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the core of an effort that would include a fresh nuclear arms control agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States, which together controlled 90 per cent of the world’s estimated 15,000 nuclear weapons.

The representative of South Africa, which had voluntarily dismantled its nuclear weapons programme, said there were “no safe hands” when it came to weapons of mass destruction.  He expressed deep concern about the catastrophic consequences of detonating atomic bombs, a point highlighted in three international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

Turning to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, several speakers appealed for the remaining Annex II countries that had yet to sign or ratify that instrument to do so.  Delegates from the Middle East, noting that Israel was not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, expressed frustration that a nuclear-weapon-free zone had yet to be established in the region.
Also speaking today were ministers, senior officials and representatives of El Salvador (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), Guyana, Indonesia, Maldives, Iran, Philippines, Cuba, Algeria, Turkey, Thailand, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Austria, India, Costa Rica, United Republic of Tanzania, Jamaica, Libya, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Ecuador, Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco, Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chile, Honduras, Argentina, Samoa, Guatemala, Ireland, Timor-Leste, Malaysia and Sweden, as well as the Holy See and the League of Arab States.  Also speaking were representatives of two civil society groups:  Basel Peace Office and Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.

Click here for the speeches.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

France: What mobilizations for peace?

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article in L’Humanite (translated by CPNN)

Panel discussion with Paul Quilès, President of IDN, former Minister of Defense and former Chairman of the Defense Committee of the National Assembly, Patrice Bouveret, Director of the Armaments Observatory, co-host of Ican France (International Campaign to abolish nuclear weapons) and Roland Nivet, vice-president of Mouvement de la Paix.


Background facts. With the exacerbation of tensions in Asia, the question of peace is urgent. As part of the International Day of Peace, a call for demonstrations everywhere in France on Saturday 23 September was launched by a collective of more than 50 organizations.

A renewal of international tensions seems to be observable since the inauguration of the new President of the United States. Is this situation irreversible?

Paul Quilès
Donald Trump is not solely responsible for what you call the revival of international tensions, even though his foes and his changing and aggressive attitude tend to destabilize the international scene. Beyond the excitement of a news that the media make us live minute by minute, we must put the developments in their context in the long term. Our multipolar world is crossed by many conflicts of interests and potential confrontations. The reduction of tensions can only be achieved if there is an international will of the great powers to dialogue, which is irreconcilable with systematic defiance, radical antagonism and threats.

The new arms race that we are witnessing is making this dialogue even more difficult. It is regrettable in this respect that France, which is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is not meeting its commitments and is preparing to substantially increase the budget for nuclear deterrence. As for the official discourse of the atomic weapons powers (including France), it is similar to that of the North Korean leader in an astonishing way, justifying the possession of this weapon by the need to defend the “vital interests” of their countries ! The agreement negotiated two years ago with Iran shows that even in a very complex context, a strong political will and persevering diplomatic work can open the way for a less conflict-oriented world.

Patrice Bouveret
The renewal of tension began before Trump came to the presidency of the United States, although his way of managing his country’s relations with the rest of the world resulted in an acceleration of certain ongoing crises. Effectively, we have to get out of the short media time to take into account, on the one hand, the root causes of the current international disorder – mainly the reinforcement of inequalities – on the other hand, the main threats we face, climate change and weapons of mass destruction. History has taught us that no situation is irreversible. Everything depends on the ability of different civil societies to seize this or that topic to shake up the game of states and their leaders – both internally and within the international community. In this regard, the adoption of the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons last July is a good example of what mobilization of associations can achieve when they group around a specific objective and find relays among a majority of States. The fierce opposition of the nuclear Powers, the pressure they have exerted on many States, underlines, if need be, the shock caused by this development.

Roland Nivet
Trump multiplies irresponsible decisions and contributes to creating a climate of fear to justify massive increases in the US military budget, a source of profits for the military-industrial complex. It will be increased to $ 600 billion in 2018 (+ $ 54 billion). It fuels the arms race ($ 1.8 trillion worldwide in 2016), the militarization of international relations, and perpetuates the logics of domination. The policy of NATO encircling Russia, the Korean crisis, etc. strain tensions. These policies accentuate the uncertain and dangerous character of the present period. The situation, especially in the Near and Middle East, shows that war is always a failure, leads to chaos and engenders monstrosities like Daech. It is never the solution. On the other hand, the political resolution of the Iranian crisis, the peaceful transition in Colombia and the adoption of a treaty banning nuclear weapons in the United Nations show that political solutions are possible and that nothing is irreversible.

The United Nations voted a nuclear-weapons treaty on 7 July. How can we get out of the era of nuclear terror?

Patrice Bouvere
By bringing this treaty into force so that the nine current nuclear powers – the five permanent members of the Security Council – the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – find themselves forced to participate, not only by stopping to modernize their arsenal – as planned in particular by France – but also by eliminating their nuclear weapons in a controlled, transparent and irreversible way. This implies, of course, a complete change in their strategy, which is currently based on the threat of mass destruction, a strategy not aimed at ensuring the security of the population, but their domination on the international scene – or the regime’s “impunity” its national space as for North Korea or Israel – at the risk of total destruction of the planet! Yet, as Mikhail Gorbachev noted in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet bloc, “everyone must ensure the safety of the other”. It is exactly the opposite way that is being implemented with the nuclear threat and the increase in military budgets.

(Article continued on the right column)

(Click here for the original version of this article in French.)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

Paul Quilès
This requires demonstrating that nuclear weapons are useless in current and future conflicts, that they are in themselves a cause of nuclear proliferation, that they are very costly, and that they are terribly dangerous. The world came close to the catastrophe during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, not to mention the dozens of accidents or possible misinterpretations that could have led to the outbreak of nuclear war. Tomorrow, a technical error, a cyber attack, a terrorist attack could threaten global security. Even limited use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic environmental impacts on a part of the planet, resulting in the devastation of agriculture, cold and famine through a “nuclear winter”. The treaty that has just been voted at the UN is to delegitimize nuclear weapons, as has already been done to eliminate other weapons of mass destruction – biological, chemical – antipersonnel mines, submunitions, to prohibit nuclear testing and even to reduce nuclear weapons stocks (from 70,000 in the late 1990s to about 15,500 today). It is the indisputable proof of the will of a majority of States to overcome the era of nuclear terror, despite the strong contrary pressures of the “endowed” states.

Roland Nivet
The UN treaty of July 7 states that atomic weapons pose a major risk of humanitarian catastrophe. It prohibits any State from engaging in the development, testing, production, manufacture, acquisition, possession or storage of nuclear weapons and prohibits any commitment to use or threaten to use weapons nuclear. This is another historic achievement in the actions that, since the 1950s, have mobilized tens of millions of people for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, without undervaluing the determination of the military-industrial complex and of the nine States, which possess a total of 18,000 nuclear bombs (184 states do not), to delay its implementation. But the principle of the illegality of nuclear weapons being confirmed, it is the timetable for their elimination which is now on the agenda. The register of ratification of the treaty will be opened at the UN on September 20, 2017. There is urgency to get together in action to win ratification of the treaty by the maximum number of states, including France, but also the immediate freeze modernization programs, for which it is planned to double the expenditure on nuclear weapons in France in the years to come, when so many resources are lacking to meet social needs (health, education, employment).

What can be the role of popular mobilizations to promote peace as a goal of international relations?

Patrice Bouveret
War is above all the result of a political choice. So it is obvious that the mobilization of the various civil societies and the establishment of strong solidarities between them, are paramount. It remains to define what is meant by the word “peace”! We are witnessing a global pacification of our societies. The number of deaths due to armed conflict is decreasing. Except that in parallel, the number of migrants, the violence they suffer, is exploding; the climatic catastrophes have dramatic human consequences that are becoming more and more important, to take only the two most glaring examples … Except that this pacification takes place with a reinforcement of the militarization of our societies, through the development of various tools social control, the reduction of individual freedoms, etc.

Peace is not only the absence of war, but must be accompanied by freedom and social justice. It must be shared by all of us, no matter where on the planet we live. It is indeed the whole issue of the nuclear-weapons treaty that concerns the right of non-dominant states to say precisely the right, a binding right for all.

Roland Nivet
A global convergence of forces for peace is brought about by the mobilization of the peoples (trade unions, NGOs, parliamentarians, mayors, International Red Cross, feminist, pacifist and environmental movements, associations for the defense of human rights, social forums …) with the action of the United Nations. It is this convergence that has won the prohibition treaty and seeks to build peace through projects such as the culture of peace and the objectives of sustainable development (SDO). In this context, the collective “En marche pour la paix” was founded in France, including more than 120 different organizations working for human rights, against racism and xenophobia, for gender equality, for the decrease in armaments expenditure, for peace education, to deal with the climatic emergency. In this dynamic, 53 organizations of this collective have co-authored a white paper for peace, which formulates concrete alternative proposals for a policy of peace. This white paper is meant to be a tool for the debate and the popular mobilization of all those who intend to come together so that the right of everyone to peace and human security is the primary goal of international relations. Believing that “none of our differences of belief, belonging or philosophical, political, religious, trade union or other sensibilities should hinder the expression of our common will to live in peace in a world of solidarity, justice and fraternity”, this collective calls, within the framework of the International Day of Peace, to organize, all over France, Saturday, September 23, marches for peace to express this common will. These marches will also contribute to the global wave of peace launched on 6 August 2017 in Hiroshima

Paul Quilès
This mobilization would be desirable and certainly effective, even if the leaders do not always listen to the people! It would still be necessary for the latter to be able to express himself or herself and to be provided with the information needed to assess what is happening when a conflict spreads. For example, the alarmist and sometimes caricatured statements about the Korea do not help understand the distant origin of the confrontation between North Korea and the United States, the interests involved, and the role of China. By suggesting warlike responses (bombardment of Korean nuclear sites), evoking the hypothesis of a third world war, or suggesting that France might be at the mercy of a Korean missile fire, to prove to public opinion that there is no other answer than military, this is inaccurate.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

USA: Campaign Nonviolence Mounts Nationwide “Week of Actions” September 16-24, 2017

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A press release from prweb

Over 1000 marches, actions, events and rallies will take place in all 50 states, as part of Campaign Nonviolence’s upcoming “Week of Actions” culminating on International Day of Peace. People nationwide are joining together to urgently insist on unity and peace.


Thousands will be participating in Campaign Nonviolence’s “Week of Actions” from September 16-24, 2017. This unprecedented nationwide campaign of grassroots activism calls for an urgent unifying peace that is free from racism, war, poverty, and environmental destruction.

“People across the United States are taking Campaign Nonviolence to the streets to immediately end violence and injustices, and begin peacemaking,” said Dr. Ken Butigan, cofounder of Campaign Nonviolence and professor at DePaul University. “This unified voice calls for policy shifts to build peace, economic justice, and environmental healing.”

Campaign Nonviolence has grown from 230 events in its inaugural year of 2014, to more than 1,000 events today.

Campaign Nonviolence is sponsored by Pace e Bene, a non-profit organization building a culture of peace through active nonviolence and shared understanding and partnerships that protect human rights, abolish war and nuclear weapons, end poverty, challenge injustice, heal the planet—and meet today’s profound spiritual task: to create a just, peaceful and nonviolent world. True to the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Campaign Nonviolence teaches how to resolve conflicts peacefully at home and abroad.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

The peace movement in the United States, What are its strengths and weaknesses?

(Article continued from left column)

“Americans need a positive vision of hope and peace for our country and our world,” said the Rev. John Dear, the nationally known peace activist and cofounder of Campaign Nonviolence who is Nobel Peace Prize nominee and author of 35 books. “During this week of national actions, we are mobilizing local grassroots initiatives to end today’s culture of violence, greed, and war. We are engaging the vision and tools for nonviolent change that Mohandas Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others have activated for personal and global transformation.”

Following are a sampling of planned events.

* Delaware Peace Week will hold more than 60 events from vigils and teach-ins to meetings statewide.

* Raleigh and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, have declared “Campaign Nonviolence North Carolina Week,” with events that will advance a peace free from racism and discrimination, poverty, war, and environmental destruction.

* The Chicago area will host 100 events in support of nonviolence and the environment.

* To date, 1,000 people are expected to join the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Peace Fest in Binns Park on Sunday, Sept. 24. Featured will be four bands and speakers that include the Rev. John Dear.

* Marches, prayer services, vigils, workshops, teach-ins, and rallies nationwide will include major events in Little Rock, Arkansas; Memphis, Tennessee; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Clinton, Iowa; Huntington, Indiana; Bangor, Maine; Lansing, Michigan; and Erie, Pennsylvania.

For a list of peacemaking rallies, with states and cities, descriptions, organizations and contact information, please visit: actions.campaignnonviolence.org.

Campaign Nonviolence is sponsored by Pace e Bene, a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization founded in 1989 by the Franciscan Friars of California. Campaign coordinators Ken Butigan and Father John Dear teach that nonviolence most effectively characterizes Jesus’ way. “It is a way that combines both the unmistakable rejection of violence, and the power of love and truth in action for justice, peace, and the integrity of creation.” For more information please visit: http://www.paceebene.org/about.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly now endorsed by over 1,500 current and former lawmakers from 120 countries

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly

The international Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, in short UNPA, is now endorsed across party lines by more than 1,500 current and former members of parliament from over 120 countries.


Possible logo of a UN Parliamentary Assembly

The campaign’s appeal for the creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly that was signed by the lawmakers calls for “a gradual implementation of democratic participation and representation on the global level” and states that “to ensure international cooperation, secure the acceptance and to enhance the legitimacy of the United Nations and strengthen its capacity to act, people must be more effectively and directly included into the activities of the United Nations and its international organizations.”

“This is an important milestone,” said Andreas Bummel, the campaign’s coordinator. “The support of a UN Parliamentary Assembly by such a broad group of parliamentarians from all the world’s regions shows once again that it is high time for the United Nations to consider this project,” he emphasized. 

“If it comes to democratizing the world organization and global cooperation, it is no longer possible to ignore the proposal for a UN Parliamentary Assembly. This is a success of the campaign and of the numerous parliamentarians whose support the campaign could mobilize”, commented Jo Leinen, a member of the European Parliament and co-chair of the campaign’s parliamentary advisory group.

The 1,500th lawmaker who signed the appeal for a UNPA last week was Nomsa Tarabella-Marchesi from South Africa. “The UN would benefit from involving elected representatives in its deliberations. After all, in many cases it’s them who are needed to help implement UN policy at the national level, especially if it comes to the Agenda 2030. A UN Parliamentary Assembly would also provide for democratic oversight of the UN’s operations, including playing a meaningful role vis-à-vis the Security Council. This additional layer of accountability would increase the world organization’s democratic character,” Mrs. Tarabella-Marchesi said.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Proposals for Reform of the United Nations: Are they sufficiently radical?

(continued from left column)

European lawmaker Soraya Post who recently supported a pro-UNPA motion in the European Parliament said that “we as peoples of the world must be be able to directly influence the UN’s political agenda and its implementation. It is a matter of our human rights and their full realization”.

Signatories include the president of the Pan-African Parliament, Roger Nkodo Dang from Cameroon, and the chairpersons of the parliamentary committees on foreign affairs in Belgium and India, Dirk van der Maelen and Shashi Tharoor, respectively. 

Numerous lawmakers who signed the appeal occupy important executive positions today. Among them are Germany’s foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel, the EU’s commissioner for the digital economy and society, Mariya Gabriel from Bulgaria, the president of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins, Sweden’s minister for international development cooperation, Isabella Lövin, the EU’s foreign minister and vice-president of the EU’s commission, Federica Mogherini, Argentina’s vice-president, Gabriela Michetti, or Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

With more than 100, the highest number of current members of parliament who endorse the campaign come from Germany, followed by Canada with over 50 and Sweden with over 40. Other countries with more than 10 current parliamentarians include Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, India, Italy, South Africa, Spain and Switzerland. More than 50 individual members of the European Parliament are on record as well.

The establishment of a UNPA has been supported by the European Parliament, the Latin-American Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament, among others.

Apart from members of parliament, the campaign has also been endorsed by numerous former UN officials, distinguished scholars, cultural innovators, representatives of civil society organizations, and many committed citizens from all walks of life.

Full list of signatories

Current Members of Parliament
Former Members of Parliament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Lawmakers in Europe Want the UN to Debate a Parliamentary Assembly. When Will Governments Follow?

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by by Andreas Bummel for the Inter Press Service

Earlier this month [July], the European Parliament adopted its annual recommendations on the European Union’s policy at the upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly that begins in September.

The document pointed out that the EU “should play a proactive part in building a United Nations that can contribute effectively to global solutions, peace and security, human rights, development, democracy and a rule-of-law-based international order.”

Among other things, the European Parliament called on EU governments to foster a debate “on the topic of establishing a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly with a view to increasing the democratic profile and internal democratic process of the organisation and to allow world civil society to be directly associated in the decision-making process.”

For more than twenty years the European Parliament has been pushing for a UN Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA). Six years ago it called on EU governments to promote its establishment.

The Council’s working group on the UN had a brief internal discussion at the time and concluded that the creation of a UNPA would imply a modification of the UN’s Charter which was considered unrealistic. It was also said that it would be a paradox for the UN to establish a UNPA since there are member states that do not have a democratically elected parliament. Finally, the point was made that a UNPA would entail high costs that the UN and governments would be unable to bear.

The Council did not engage with the parliament or anyone else pertaining these and other arguments. Its consideration of the issue was superficial. Ironically, it is easier for the UN to create a UNPA than to add just one single seat to the UN Security Council. Other than the Council seemed to believe, while the latter indeed requires an amendment of the Charter, the former clearly does not.

A UNPA can be created according to Article 22 which allows the General Assembly to establish subsidiary bodies as it deems necessary to fulfill its work. A UNPA could be seen as part of the assembly’s “revitalization”, a topic that has been pursued for long but did not yield much results so far.

Each year, Freedom House in Washington D.C. publishes its assessment of democracy in the world and today nearly two thirds of UN member states are considered to be “electoral democracies”. The foundation warns, however, that democracy is increasingly under threat by populist and nationalistic forces as well as authoritarian powers.

Proponents of a UNPA keep pointing out that giving parliamentarians a voice at the UN would help strengthening democracy especially in countries where it is still weak and under pressure. Opposition politicians certainly would benefit from a seat in a UNPA and the international exposure that would go along with it.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Proposals for Reform of the United Nations: Are they sufficiently radical?

(continued from left column)

After all, it has been a key argument that if the UN’s promotion of democracy is to be credible, the world organization itself needs to democratize as well. The establishment of a UNPA could also be understood as a response to Sustainable Development Goal 16. SDG 16 targets include the development of “effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels” and ensuring “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” Why should the UN, of all things, be excluded from this?

A UN parliamentary body could be a useful complement to the High-Level Political Forum on sustainable development in order to review the implementation of the SDGs.

At the beginning, a UNPA need not be a monumental investment. It depends on the specifics. So far, neither the Council of the EU or anyone else has come up with a thorough calculation. How can you argue that the costs would be too high if you never calculated them in the first place?

Under US President Donald Trump multilateralism and UN funding are under threat. This should be a wake-up call. To a large degree, a UNPA would be educational. It would bring the UN closer to lawmakers in the capitals and could help strengthen budgetary support of UN member states. In the long run, strengthening the UN’s democratic profile could turn out to be a good investment.

When she was an Italian deputy, the EU’s High Representative on Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, endorsed a UNPA and last year she confirmed that she still believes that it “could be a very useful tool.”

For a long time, EU governments have been ignoring the European Parliament’s endorsement of a UNPA. Will it be different this time?

Although a debate on this topic is not unrealistic, it is premature to expect that there will be a formal push in the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly. Most UN member states, including those from the EU, never looked into the concept of a UNPA in a serious way and will have to do their homework first.

Support like it was expressed by Malta’s foreign minister George Vella, who was succeeded last month, or by the cabinet of Italy’s foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni, who is now Italy’s Prime Minister, was the exception.

In May an informal meeting in New York hosted by the Canadian UN mission in collaboration with the international Campaign for a UNPA brought together representatives of 12 governments for a briefing on the proposal. This was a sign of growing interest.

More such informal meetings seem to be the most likely way forward for the time being. In the process, several EU governments – and other UN member states – may declare their support in one way or another which eventually could bring it on the EU’s and the UN’s agenda.

In particular, it will be interesting to see what position the new French government under President Emmanuel Macron will take.

The author, Andreas Bummel, is Director of Democracy Without Borders and Coordinator of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Roundtable on Increasing Democratic Representation at the United Nations in The Hague

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by the Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly [highlights by CPNN]

At an event convened by Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) in The Hague on May 15, representatives of regional parliaments, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) and academia came together to explore mechanisms to increase democratic representation and accountability of the United Nations.


Click on photo to enlarge

The Roundtable that was hosted by the House of Representatives of the Netherlands with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands provided an opportunity to exchange ideas and to assess options like the creation of a UNPA or an improvement of existing mechanisms. The opening remarks were delivered by the even’s co-hosts Pieter Omtzigt, a member of the Dutch House of Representatives, and Nico Schrijver, member of the Dutch Senate, both of which are also members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The first panel was started with a presentation by Andreas Bummel, coordinator of the UNPA Campaign, who stressed the need for creating a formal parliamentary body at the UN that would provide new space for members of parliament to be involved in the UN’s work. He said that the campaign’s goal was a UNPA vested with distinctive rights and powers that could be created, in a first step, by the UN General Assembly based on Article 22 of the UN Charter. He suggested that the apportionment of seats should be based on the principle of “degressive propotionality” which means that on a sliding scale smaller states would get more seats per capita than larger ones.

According to the second speaker, Anda Filip, Director of External Relations at IPU, the IPU already attempts to bring the voices of parliaments and parliamentarians to the UN and its agenda. She said that going through the IPU as an institution separate from the UN would maintain a clear separation of powers and promote independence and autonomy. She suggested that existing tools provided for by the IPU should be strengthened instead of creating new institutions.

Hans Köchler, Professor emeritus at the University of Innsbruck and President of International Progress Organization, elaborated on the democratic deficit at the UN, in particular with respect to the Security Council and the veto privilege of its five permanent members. He argued that a UNPA would represent an important step towards making the UN more democratic and raised the idea that such a new body might be better suited to monitor and oversee actions and decisions of the Security Council.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Proposals for Reform of the United Nations: Are they sufficiently radical?

(continued from left column)

Subsequently, Charles Santiago, a member of parliament from Malaysia, shared his experiences as legislator and chair of the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) whose objective is to investigate and raise awareness of human rights violations in the Asian South Eastern states. In particular, he elaborated on the difficulties of establishing an inter-parliamentary assembly with consultative powers within ASEAN, given that member states insist on the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs.

The second session on lessons-learned from regional parliaments and organizations was opened and facilitated by Margareta Cederfelt, member of parliament from Sweden, Chair of PGA’s International Council and member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). As an introduction, Mrs. Cederfelt briefly explained the mandate of the OSCE which consists of 57 participating states from Canada to Mongolia.

Among other things, the panelists discussed the added benefits of regional parliaments and the challenges that arise from working in both regional and national parliament at the same time. According to Felipe Michelini, a former member of parliament from Uruguay and of the Latin-American Parliament, it was PGA and not regional parliaments that helped mobilize legislators so that Latin-American countries would join the International Criminal Court despite pressure from the US against doing so.

The Vice-President of the Pan-African Parliament (PAP), Bernadette Lahai, shared her experiences in the African parliamentary body and as a member of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, a transregional parliamentary body created to democratize the framework of development cooperation. She discussed the structure of PAP, how members are elected and the roles they fulfill. Based on this she provided examples of the roles that a UNPA could play such as monitoring implementation processes and making recommendations to the UN General Assembly. She suggested that the preparations for the creation of a new parliamentary body at the UN would benefit from studying the powers and operations of existing international parliamentary bodies.

The second session ended with remarks from Niels Blokker, a Professor at Leiden University and former Deputy Legal Advisor at the Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs, who presented his research on different types of international parliamentary bodies. With regard to a UNPA he raised questions such as whether each state should have the same number of MPs or if it should vary by population size or whether or not the body should have budgetary or legislative powers.

The event was concluded by Mr. Schrijver and David Donat Cattin, Secretary General of PGA. As PGA’s summary of the event points out, they highlighted “the necessity of parliamentary representation in the form of a decision-making or advisory body to the UN.” At the same time, they emphasized the importance of further examining existing methods and their effectiveness. Participants were called upon to engage with this topic at the national and international levels, in particular, to determine which existing models of regional parliamentary bodies may serve as inspiration for a UNPA.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament releases Action Plan for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament

A Parliamentary Action Plan for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World was released at the United Nations in New York today, during the final few days of UN negotiations on a Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons. The release of the plan also came one day after the North Korean test of an inter-continental ballistic missile, which has raised the nuclear tensions in the North East Asian region. The Action Plan, which has been developed by Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament [PNND] in consultation with the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), includes 14 key nuclear disarmament actions that can be taken by parliamentarians.

Some of these are actions that parliamentarians from States Parties to the forthcoming nuclear prohibition treaty can take to implement the treaty in their parliaments. These are all non-nuclear States, as the nuclear-armed and allied States are not participating in the prohibition treaty.

Other actions in the Plan are those that parliamentarians from nuclear armed and allied States can take to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons being used, and move their governments to adopt incremental disarmament measures, phase out the reliance on nuclear deterrence and negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

And some actions in the Plan are those that parliamentarians from all States can take to build public awareness and political will for the achievement of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

The plan draws from reports and resolutions on nuclear disarmament adopted by the IPU in 2009 and 2014, as well as resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and a series of consultations undertaken by PNND in key capitals and UN centres during 2016-2017.

Actions by parliamentarians to implement the nuclear prohibition treaty

The Plan encourages parliamentarians from States that join the forthcoming nuclear weapons prohibition treaty, to implement the treaty in their parliaments by prohibiting the threat, use, production, stationing and testing of nuclear weapons in their territories.

Such actions would not impact directly on the policies and practices of the nuclear-armed States, but would reinforce a norm against nuclear weapons.

Impact on the nuclear-armed States: transit and nuclear investments

The Action Plan suggests that States Parties to the nuclear prohibition treaty could also adopt measures that are not specifically required by the nuclear prohibition treaty, but which would would impact considerably on the nuclear armed States. These measures include prohibiting transit of nuclear weapons through their territories (ports, airfields, territorial waters and airspace), and prohibiting the financing of nuclear weapons.

PNND provided information to the UN negotiations on how a national prohibition on transit of nuclear weapons can work, drawing primarily from the experience of the New Zealand nuclear weapons ban. See The Ban Treaty, Transit and National Implementation.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

A UN High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament: Distraction or progress?

(Continued from left column)

PNND has joined with the World Future Council and International Peace Bureau in a project ‘Move the Nuclear Weapons Money’ which provides information about parliamentary actions in nuclear-armed States to cut nuclear weapons budgets and re-direct these funds to economic, social and environmental needs (including protecting the climate); parliamentary actions in non-nuclear States to end investments of public funds and banks in corporations manufacturing nuclear weapons and their dedicated delivery systems.

Other actions by parliamentarians in nuclear armed and allied states

The Action plan includes a number of actions that parliamentarians in nuclear-armed and allied States can take to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons use and advance nuclear disarmament measures. These includes proposals on de-alerting, no-first use, stockpile reduction, verification, transparency, establishing additional nuclear-weapon-free zones, and supporting nuclear disarmament negotiations.

The Plan includes examples of such actions in national parliaments and in inter-parliamentary bodies including the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones

The Action Plan reports on proposals and parliamentary actions for the establishment of nuclear-weapon free zones in the Middle East, Europe and North East Asia.

The NE Asia proposal is particularly relevant as a possible solution to the nuclear crisis unfolding in the region over North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile development.

UN High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament

The Action Plan focuses on key multilateral forums where parliamentarians can advance nuclear disarmament, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conferences, and the United Nations.

The Plan highlights the unique opportunity provided by the 2018 UN High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament. Similar UN High Level Conferences (HLCs) over the past few years have been very successful in adopting global agreements on sustainable development goals (2015), climate change (2016), refugees and migrants (2016) and oceans (2017).

The 2018 HLC on Nuclear Disarmament could build considerable political will for nuclear disarmament, if governments attend at the ‘highest level’. It could provide a forum to elevate the nuclear prohibition treaty, make progress on nuclear risk-reduction and disarmament measures by the nuclear armed States, and advance regional measures such as nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and North-East Asia.

Public awareness and political will

The Action Plan also includes a number of actions that parliamentarians can take to increase public awareness and build political will for nuclear disarmament. These include:

– Commemorating key dates including the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons;

– Endorsing the joint statement of mayors, parliamentarians and religious leaders for nuclear disarmament;

– Supporting peace and disarmament education in schools and communities including through peace parks and museums.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Center for Justice and Peacebuilding partners with UNDP and Iraqi youth to build culture of peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Lauren Jefferson for the Augusta Free Press

In an Iraqi mall on Valentine’s Day, shoppers were treated to a unique sight. Twenty-eight young people wearing traditional dress from the many cultures in the country congregated to sing, dance, and hand out flowers and balloons with messages of love and co-existence. The event, one of 42 created and implemented by Iraqi youth across Iraq, was to promote peaceful coexistence and tolerance among Iraqi communities struggling through a divisive political climate.

The project brings together Eastern Mennonite University’s Center for Justice and Peacebuilding and the Iraqi al-Amal Association in a multi-phase project that focuses on youth and academics to build a culture of peace in the country.

As key stakeholders in Iraqi social fabric, youth and academics are “seen as instrumental in strengthening social cohesion and promoting civil society initiatives and dialogue between various ethnic and religious groups,” according to the project grant, which is funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Five EMU faculty and alumni are involved: Dr. Alma Abdul-hadi Jadallah, president and managing director of Kommon Denominator, and CJP adjunct faculty; Aala Ali MA ’14, UNDP development officer; Cynthia Nassif MA ’14 of Lebanon , and Najla El Mangoush MA ’15 of Libya, both doctoral students at George Mason University; and Ahmed Tarik MA ’16, of Iraq. Nassif, Mangoush and Tarik designed workshops on conflict resolution in Arabic for both youths and academics. Jadallah provided the first training for youth in October 2016, followed by two others for youth and three for academics from Iraqi universities. While the academic trainings will lead to a peace building curricula that would be shared by universities across Iraq, the youth trainings culminated in a series of community peacebuilding project proposals.

Mangoush appreciated the opportunity to work together with CJP alumni on one project, “practicing our beliefs and skills as peacebuilders from different Arabic countries to assist peace in Iraq.” An important aspect of the project, she adds, is “acknowledging the need to promote peace from a local perspective and through religious tolerance.”

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

A culture of peace in Iraq, Is it possible?

(Continued from left column)

More than 563 youth from Najaf, Nineveh and Baghdad applied to participate in the trainings. Seventy-two were selected, with criteria including age, potential, experience, connections, responsibility, diversity and vision.

After the trainings, participants created project proposals that employed sports, arts, social media, listening and dialogue to address a variety of topics: women’s rights, children’s education, displaced persons and host community engagement, interfaith dialogue and conflict resolution workshops, according to Nassif. El Mangoush and Nassif evaluated and selected proposals for funding.

Muntather Hassan, youth program coordinator for the Iraqi al-Amal Association, has attended each training, worked with youth on their proposals, and watched selected projects come to fruition.

A Facebook page that provides a space for artworks created on the theme of peace. Five artists started this project, and they’ve been joined by 50 others.Besides the Valentine’s Day project, other funded projects include:

Visitation programs in Erbil, where Muslim activists visited internally displaced Christian children in Erbil, and in Baghdad, where both Christian and Muslim activists visited Muslim children.

Though Iraq is full of problems, Hassan says young people see a chance to make a difference and to address issues “the older generation can’t see.” They are motivated, he said, by the desire to live a normal life without fear, “ordinary needs that give them motivation.”

“A journey like this comes once a life,” wrote one participant. Another shared that he felt “loved, respected, supported and listened to.” Yet another learned not all Muslims are ISIS.”

“Mohammed came back from Erbil as a different person, a better one,” said one participant’s parents.

About the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding

Eastern Mennonite University’s Center for Justice and Peacebuilding offers graduate programs in restorative justice (the first program of its kind in North America) and conflict transformation, as well as professional development and training for global peacebuilders through several programs: the Summer Peacebuilding Institute, Women’s Peacebuilding Leadership Program, Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience (STAR), and the Zehr Institute for Restorative Justice. CJP’s vision is to prepare, transform, and sustain leaders to create a more just and peaceful world.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

Belarus: OSCE parliamentarians adopt Minsk Declaration with comprehensive recommendations for peace and prosperity

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Information from the press release of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted the 2017 Minsk Declaration today [July 9] with recommendations to national governments, parliaments and the international community to help shape policies in the fields of political affairs, security, economics, environment, and human rights. More than 260 parliamentarians from 55 OSCE countries and several Partners for Co-operation participated in the five-day Annual Session in Minsk held under the theme “Enhancing mutual trust and co-operation for peace and prosperity in the OSCE region.”


Belarusian delegation voting on the OSCE PA Minsk Declaration in plenary session, 9 July 2017

Parliamentarians representing the collective voice of one billion people from across the OSCE area adopted the Minsk Declaration with recommendations and pronouncements on issues including counter-terrorism, conflict resolution, climate change, migration, and strengthening the OSCE’s human rights enforcement mechanisms. (Full text available in English, French and Russian.)

[Editor’s note: Of particular importance for readers of CPNN, the Minsk Declaration included two paragraphs concerning negotiations for a ban on nuclear weapons – see below]

The Declaration “urges participating States to recommit to multilateral diplomacy in the pursuit of comprehensive security and to implement OSCE confidence-building measures” to reduce the risk of conflict. It calls for governments to “develop measures aimed at blocking the funding of terrorist organizations … including by improving legal frameworks and law enforcement methods, strengthening the security of international transportation, and by tracking the movements of terrorists within countries and across borders.”

In the economic and environmental dimension, the Declaration “urges all OSCE participating States to recognize the urgency of the climate crisis and its related challenges” and underlines that “domestic economic policies should prioritize clean energy projects, investment and innovation to promote sustained growth and ensure that negative effects on the environment are minimized.” It further calls on all OSCE countries “to ratify the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change [and] to fulfill their obligations under the agreement.”

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

In the economic and environmental dimension, the Declaration “urges all OSCE participating States to recognize the urgency of the climate crisis and its related challenges” and underlines that “domestic economic policies should prioritize clean energy projects, investment and innovation to promote sustained growth and ensure that negative effects on the environment are minimized.” It further calls on all OSCE countries “to ratify the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change [and] to fulfill their obligations under the agreement.”

On human rights, the Declaration “calls on OSCE participating States to respect the human dignity and equal rights of all their citizens by implementing to the fullest extent all OSCE commitments concerning human rights, fundamental freedoms, pluralistic democracy, and the rule of law.” It urges an immediate end to “the harassment, imprisonment, mistreatment, and disappearance of political opponents, human rights defenders, journalists, and other members of civil society.”

The Assembly also adopted resolutions on the crisis in and around Ukraine, the death penalty, new voting technologies, energy and water security, religious discrimination, legislative responses to new psychoactive substances, preventing child sexual exploitation, and promoting gender-inclusive conflict mediation.

The Declaration and resolutions will now be shared with parliaments and foreign ministers of OSCE countries, to serve as policy input ahead of the OSCE’s 2017 Ministerial Council meeting this year in Vienna.

[Editor’s note: Here are the two paragraphs from the Minsk Declaration concerning a ban on nuclear weapons. It should be noted that despite this advice of their parliamentarians, most of the member states of these delegations boycotted the UN negotiations,:

20. Welcoming the launch of negotiations at UN headquarters in New York between 123 countries this spring to establish an international ban against the possession, use, threat of use, acquisition, stockpiling, or deployment of nuclear weapons;

( . . . )

48. Calls on all countries to participate in UN negotiations on nuclear disarmament and to pursue the adoption of nuclear risk reduction, transparency and disarmament measures; ]

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Unfold Zero: Making Use of the New Nuclear Ban Treaty

.DISARMAMENT & SECURITY.

An article by Unfold Zero

On July 7, 2017, the United Nations adopted a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons following negotiations over 5 weeks during March, June and July. 122 countries voted in favour of the treaty, demonstrating the clear and unequivocal acceptance of the majority of UN members never to use, threaten to use, produce, possess, acquire, transfer, test or deploy nuclear weapons. The treaty will be open for signature on September 20 and will enter-into-force once 50 States ratify.

UNFOLD ZERO promoted the negotiations, and was actively involved in them – submitting working papers, making interventions and organising side events. We are now active in the treaty implementation and follow-up. 

Impact on the nuclear armed and allied States?

The nuclear-armed and allied States opposed the treaty and none are likely to join. As such they are not bound by its provisions, and will not be directly affected by it.

However, the new treaty could be used to impact on the policies and practices of the nuclear armed States and their allies in two key ways:

1 through national implementation measures that prohibit financing and transit of nuclear weapons;

2 by putting political pressure on these States to adopt nuclear risk reduction and disarmament measures, including through the Non-Proliferation Treaty process and at the 2018 UN High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament. 

National implementation: Prohibiting nuclear weapons investments

The nuclear prohibition treaty could impact on nuclear weapons policies if it results in divestment by States parties and others from corporations manufacturing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.

These corporations (list compiled by Don’t Bank on the Bomb) are a major driver of the nuclear arms race. They actively lobby their parliaments and governments to continue allocating the funds to nuclear weapons. And they support think tanks and other public initiatives to promote the ‘need’ for nuclear weapons maintenance, modernization and expansion.

Many of the countries supporting the nuclear prohibition treaty have public funds (such as national pension funds), and banks operating in their countries, that invest in these corporations.

The new treaty does not specifically prohibit such investments. However, States parties to the treaty agree not to ‘assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty.’  This can be interpreted as prohibiting investments in nuclear weapons corporations.

If a number of States Parties to the treaty, encouraged by their parliamentarians and civil society, decide to prohibit investments in nuclear weapons corporations as part of their national implementation measures, this could highlight the unethical corporate practice of manufacturing such weapons, damage the standing of such corporations and constrain their lobbying power.

UNFOLD ZERO and our partner organisations are therefore stepping up our Move the Nuclear Weapons Money campaign in order to dramatically increase the number of countries divesting from nuclear weapons corporations, focusing on those countries joining the nuclear prohibition treaty.

We are also supporting nuclear weapons divestment by cities, universities and religious institutions in nuclear-armed and allied countries, building on the example of the city of Cambridge MA (USA).

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

This divestment campaign is coupled with campaigns in the nuclear-armed States to drastically cut nuclear weapons budgets and re-direct these resources into economic, social and envirnomental need, such as prmooting renewable energy and protecting the climate.

For more information see Move the Nuclear Weapons Money: A handbook for civil society and legislators’ or contact us at UNFOLD ZERO. 

National implementation: prohibiting transit

One step that States parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons could take that would impact directly on the policies and practices of the nuclear armed states is to prohibit the transit of nuclear weapons through their territorial waters and airspace.

The new treaty infers that allowing such transit by nuclear-armed states would be in violation of the treaty provision under which States parties to the treaty agree not to ”assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty.’ However, the treaty leaves it up to each State party on how they implement this provision.

Some of the countries in the UN negotiations on the treaty argued that a ban on transit would be too difficult to implement, verify and enforce, especially as the nuclear-armed States refuse to confirm or deny which ships and airplanes are carrying nuclear weapons.

However, UNFOLD ZERO partner organisations Aotearoa (New Zealand) Lawyers for Peace and PNND submitted a paper to the prohibition treaty negotiations reviewing the experience of New Zealand, a country which has adopted legislation prohibiting transit of nuclear weapons and has been successful in implementing this. We are therefore encouraging States Parties to the treaty to include a prohibition on transit in their national implementation measures.

Nuclear armed and allied States have easily dismissed the Treaty on the prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as not relevant to them and which they can ignore. It is not so easy for them to ignore the 2018 UN High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament (2018 UNHLC).

There is a general expectation (from media, parliaments, civil society and other governments) that governments will participate in UN high-level conferences at the highest level, i.e. by the President or Prime Minister, and that these conferences will deliver concrete outcomes.

As such, recent UN high-level conferences have been very successful, resulting in the adoption of the sustainable development goals, Paris agreement on climate change, NY declaration on refugees and migrants and the 14-point action plan to protect the oceans.

Already the 56 member parliaments of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (which includes the parliaments of four nuclear armed and all the NATO countries) have called ”on all participating OSCE States to participate in the 2018 UN international conference on nuclear disarmament at the highest level, to include parliamentarians in their delegations to the conference and to pursue the adoption of nuclear risk reduction, transparency and disarmament measures at the conference.” (Tblisi Declaration, adopted July 5, 2016)

The ban treaty could be used to put additional pressure on the nuclear-armed and allied states to undertake such measures.

The 2018 UNHLC could also be an opportunity for non-nuclear countries to announce their ratification of the nuclear prohibition treaty. If 50 ratifications are achieved by the 2018 UNHLC, then this could be the occasion to announce its entry-into-force.

UNFOLD ZERO is coordinating civil society action for the 2018 UNHLC in cooperation with the Abolition 2000 Working Group on the 2018 UNHLC. Please contact us at info@unfoldzero.org if you would like to be more involved.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,