Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

Draft UN nuclear weapon ban released

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from ICAN, the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons

The first draft of the United Nations treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons was released in Geneva, Switzerland, on 22 May. Elayne Whyte Gómez, the Costa Rican ambassador who is presiding over negotiations of the historic accord, presented the text to diplomats and members of civil society, before answering questions from the media.

The draft was developed on the basis of discussions and input received during the first round of negotiations, held at the UN headquarters in New York from 27 to 31 March 2017, with the participation of 132 nations. The negotiations will resume on 15 June and continue until 7 July, with the draft as the basis.

ICAN welcomes the release of the draft as an important milestone in the years-long effort to ban these indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction in light of their inhumane and catastrophic impacts. Once adopted, the treaty will constitute an major step towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

The draft provides a solid basis for a strong, categorical prohibition of nuclear weapons. ICAN expects further constructive debate on certain provisions as the process moves forward, and will be campaigning to ensure the strongest possible treaty. We are confident that the treaty can be agreed by 7 July.

“We are particularly happy that the text is rooted in humanitarian principles and builds on existing prohibitions of unacceptable weapons, such as the conventions banning biological and chemical weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions,” said Beatrice Fihn, the executive director of ICAN.

Nuclear-armed and nuclear alliance states should engage constructively in these discussions, she said. “Whilst they will be able to join the treaty once it has been agreed, failure to participate in the negotiations undermines their claims to be committed to a world without nuclear weapons.”

“Nuclear weapons are morally unacceptable. They are intended to kill civilians indiscriminately,” Ms Fihn said. “Their continued existence undermines the moral credibility of every country that relies on them. A treaty to ban them, as a first step towards their elimination, will have real and lasting impact.”

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

Question related to this article:
DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Abolition 2000 Annual Meeting: Supports Women’s March. Calls for Nuclear Risk Reduction

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Abolition 2000

Abolition 2000 held its 22nd Annual Assembly on May 1 as governments arrived in Vienna for a 2-week conference on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament; the 2017 Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT Prep Com).


(click on photo to enlarge)

Abolition 2000 members from around the world discussed the current political environment; a time of great uncertainty and concern about the risks of nuclear war, but also the opportunities for progress that are emerging, such as the UN negotiations for a nuclear prohibition treaty and the 2018 UN High Level Conference on Disarmament.

There were dynamic reports on Abolition 2000 projects, working groups and affiliated campaigns, including De-alerting and nuclear risk reduction, Don’t Bank on the Bomb, Economic Dimensions of Nuclearism, ICAN, Interfaith action, International law and nuclear weapons, Mayors for Peace, Missile control, Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, Nukes Out of Europe, Parliamentary Outreach, Peace and Planet, UNFOLD ZERO and Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. (To join a working group contact info@baselpeaceoffice.org).

New working group

The Assembly established a new working group to build support from civil society and governments for the United Nations High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, which will take place in 2018. This follows on from successful UN High Level Conferences on Sustainable Development (2015) which achieved agreement on 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Climate Change (2015) which achieved the Paris Agreement and Refugees and Migrants (2016) which achieved the New York Declaration.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

Action statements

The participants at the assembly adopted a statement alerting governments and civil society to the risks of nuclear weapons being used by accident, miscalculation or even by intent. The statement calls on governments to take all nuclear weapons off alert, and adopt additional measures to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons being used pending their elimination.

The Assembly also gave support to an exciting Women’s March and Rally to Ban the Bomb which will be held in New York on June 17, during the United Nations negotiations for a nuclear ban treaty. The March and Rally will bring together people of all genders, sexual orientations, ages, races, abilities, nationalities, cultures, faiths, political affiliations and backgrounds to support the negotiations. Abolition 2000 has contributed financially to the march, and member organisations are promoting the March and associated events including a conference in New York on June 18 entitled No Nukes, No Wars, No Walls, No Warming, organised by Peace and Planet.

Abolition 2000 dynamic new website

The Abolition 2000 Annual Meeting was happy to note the recent launch of the newly designed abolition 2000 website which is available in English and Spanish, and shortly in French. Expressions of interest in working on other languages should be sent to Tony Robinson tonymrobinson@gmail.com. The Assembly also affirmed a Global Council of over 60 nuclear disarmament activists from around the world, and a coordinating committee of 12 members.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

The Inside Story on Our UN Report Calling Israel an Apartheid State

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. ,

An article by Richard Falk reprinted by Transcend Media Service

Six months ago, the UN’s Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA) asked Virginia Tilley and me to write a study examining the applicability of the international criminal law concept of apartheid to Israel’s policies and practices toward the Palestinian people. We were glad to accept the assignment, and conceived of our role as engaging in an academic undertaking. ESCWA, one of several UN regional commissions, requested the study as a result of an uncontested motion adopted by its 18 Arab member governments.


A Palestinian woman argues with Israeli soldiers at a West Bank checkpoint south of Hebron on August 16, 2016. (Reuters / Mussa Qawasma)

Almost within hours of its release on March 15, our report was greeted by what can only be described as hysteria. The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, denounced it and demanded that the UN repudiate it. The newly elected secretary general, António Guterres, quickly and publicly called for ESCWA to withdraw the report from its website, and when Rima Khalaf, the head of the commission, resisted, Guterres insisted. Rather than comply, Khalaf resigned. Soon thereafter, the report was withdrawn from the commission’s website, despite its having been published with a disclaimer noting that it represents the views of its authors and not necessarily that of ESCWA or the UN.

What is striking about this response, which resembles in many respects the US government response to the Goldstone Report (the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict of 2008-9), is the degree to which Israel’s supporters, in response to criticism, have sought to discredit the messenger rather than address the message.

We had hoped that our analysis would prompt debate, dialogue, and consideration of our recommendations.

Tilley, a professor of political science at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, and I, as well as ESCWA, would welcome substantive discussion of and critical feedback on our report, and we had hoped that our analysis and conclusions would provide the basis for dialogue and further consideration of the recommendations appended at the end. ESCWA, for its part, took steps to ensure that the report lived up to scholarly standards, submitting the draft text to three prominent international jurists, who anonymously submitted strong positive appraisals along with some suggestions for revision, which we gratefully incorporated before the final text was released. For government officials and others to dismiss our report as a biased polemic is irresponsible, with respect both to the authority of the UN and to international law.

During my tenure as the UN’s Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories (2008-14), I saw how defenders of Israel attempt to discredit critics. My reports in that post often contained sharp criticisms of Israel and other actors, ranging from defiance of international law, unlawful expansion of settlements, excessive use of force, and complicity of international corporations and banks that do business for profit with the settlements. To my surprise, I never received substantive pushback regarding my allegations, but I did have the unpleasant experience of having my words on unrelated issues torn out of context. Among my harshest critics were not only the usual ultra-Zionist NGOs, but also Barack Obama’s diplomats at the UN, including Susan Rice and Samantha Power, as well as then-Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. I mention this personal experience only to note that it falls into a longstanding pattern of rebuttal that prefers to smear rather than engage in reasoned debate about important issues of law and justice.

The international crime of apartheid was set forth in the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The main elements of the crime consist in deliberate and systematic acts of racial discrimination with the purpose of maintaining unlawful structures of domination by one race over another. Our report also considered whether, in the context of inquiring into the presence of apartheid, it was appropriate to consider Jews and Palestinians as distinct races; we found that there was abundant grounding to do so. As our report shows, “race” in this context is treated as a socially and politically constructed category defining a distinct people. It has no necessary correlation with biogenetic realities, which in this case show an overlap between Jews and Palestinians.

Even Palestinian citizens of Israel, who can vote and form political parties, are subject to many discriminatory laws.

The report also proceeds from the proposition that whether apartheid exists or not depends on the overall treatment of the Palestinian people as a whole. Adopting what we believed to be innovative methodology, we approached this challenge by dividing the Palestinians into four domains that correspond to the manner in which Israel has exercised its authority over the course of many decades, although specific tactics of control have varied through time. In the past, a thorough study by international law scholars found that Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories are consistent with apartheid. It called attention to the discriminatory treatment of Palestinians, who are subject to military administration as compared to the Jewish settler population, which enjoys the full benefit of the rule of law as it is observed in Israel in relation to Jewish nationals. That study found that such features as “settler-only roads,” dual legal systems, and the draconian separation of the two populations into regions on the basis of race are the hallmark of apartheid. Repressive practices that have made the lives of ordinary Palestinians a daily ordeal are part of this system, as international law establishes that penalizing resistance to apartheid is itself a crime of apartheid.

(article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(article continued from left column)

A second domain investigated in the report involves Palestinians who are residents of Jerusalem. Here the apartheid character of Israeli rule is exhibited in the way the government undermines the security of those Palestinians, manipulating their rights of residence as well as imposing a variety of discriminatory practices, ranging from fiscal measures to the issuance of building permits.

The third domain concerns the Palestinian minority living in Israel, perhaps the most problematic component in terms of establishing a definition of apartheid that encompasses the entire Palestinian population. In this category are some 1.7 million citizens of Israel, who are allowed to form political parties and vote in elections. But this minority, which makes up about 20 percent of the overall Israeli population, is prohibited by law from challenging the proclaimed Jewish character of the state and is subject to a wide range of discriminatory nationality laws as well as administrative practices that severely restrict their rights, with effects on land acquisition, property, immigration, family reunification, and marital freedom.

International law has detached apartheid from its South African origins; it’s now a stand-alone crime against humanity.

A fourth domain, and the one affecting the largest demographic segment, is made up of Palestinians registered as refugees by UN procedures or living under conditions of involuntary exile. In the background is the non-implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948), which confirms the right of return enjoyed by Palestinians dispossessed or displaced by Israel in 1948. This right of return is declared in General Assembly Resolution 3236 to be an “inalienable right,” which thus presumably incorporates those additional several hundred thousand Palestinians displaced by the 1967 war. As far as is known, no Palestinian displaced since the establishment of Israel in 1948 has been granted the right of return to resume residence.

From the perspective of international law, the crime of apartheid has been detached from its historical origins in South Africa. Neither the 1973 Convention nor the 1998 Rome Statute underlying the International Criminal Court ties apartheid to South Africa, but rather treats its practice as a stand-alone crime against humanity. Thus, there are important differences between the way apartheid operated in South Africa and the way it is currently being imposed on the Palestinians, but these differences are not relevant to the question of whether it fairly and accurately applies to Israel. One notable difference is that in South Africa the Afrikaner leadership forthrightly proclaimed apartheid as a reflection of its ideological belief in the separation of races, whereas for Israel such a structure of separation on the basis of race is denied and repudiated. There are other differences as well, relating to degrees of labor dependence and the demographic ratio.

This quasi-permanent structure of domination cannot be justified convincingly by reference to Israeli security needs.

Our report concludes that Israel has deliberately fragmented the Palestinian people in relation to these four demographic domains, relying on systematic discrimination, including “inhuman acts,” to maintain its control, while continuing to expand territorially at the expense of the Palestinian people. On the basis of these findings—backed up by detailed presentations of empirical data, including reliance on Israeli official sources—we conclude that the allegation of apartheid as applied to the Palestinian people is well founded.

We realize that our report is the work of academic investigators and is not an authoritative finding by a formal judicial or governmental institution. At this point it has not—contrary to media reports and diplomatic denunciations—even been endorsed or accepted by the UN, or even ESCWA. We do recommend such an endorsement, and we urge the UN, national governments, and civil society to take measures designed to encourage Israel to dismantle its apartheid regime and treat the Palestinian people in accord with the dictates of international law and human rights, as well as elementary morality.

The broader setting associated with our contention that Israel has become an apartheid state draws on the reality that there is no peaceful resolution to the conflict on the diplomatic horizon, and thus no foreseeable prospect for ending the discriminatory regime. This quasi-permanent structure of domination cannot be justified convincingly by reference to Israeli security needs. A people cannot be permanently repressed in these various ways without viewing the structure that has emerged as an apartheid regime. Indeed, part of the reason for not awaiting a more formal assessment of these charges is our sense of urgency in ending a set of arrangements that have for so long been responsible for so much suffering and denial of basic rights, above all the right of self-determination.

It remains our central hope, one shared by ESCWA, that the widespread availability of the report will lead to a clearer understanding of the Palestinian plight and encourage more effective responses by the UN, by governments, and by civil society. Beyond this, it is our continuing wish that people of good will throughout the world, especially within Israel, will work toward a political solution that will finally allow Jews and Palestinians to live together in peace, with justice.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

UN commences nuclear abolition negotiations

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by by Alyn Ware for Abolition 2000

On 16 February, approximately 100 countries gathered at the United Nations for the first session of negotiations on a legal agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons. The participants included two nuclear-armed States (China and India) and one NATO country (Netherlands) with the remaining being non-nuclear countries. (See the list of states participating below).

The negotiations are being undertaken in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 71/258 Taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations, adopted on December 23 by a vote of 113 in favour, 35 opposed and 13 abstaining.

This first session of the ban treaty negotiations, which took place on Feb 16, 2017, considered procedural matters such as the election of officers, agenda for the negotiations, rules of procedure and participation of NGOs. The substantive negotiations on the proposed ban treaty will take place March 27-31 and June 17 –July 7.

Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gómez of Costa Rica was elected as Chair of the negotiations. Costa Rica has a strong track record on multilateral nuclear disarmament including being a member of the Latin America and Caribbean Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, being one of the leaders of the initiative which achieved an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice in 1996 on the general illegality of nuclear weapons, chairing the 2013 sessions of the Open Ended Working Group on Taking Forward Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations (OEWG) which along with the 2016 sessions of the OEWG led to the UN General Assembly decision to initiate the ban treaty negotiations, and submitting a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention to the United Nations General Assembly and NPT Review Conferences as a guide to comprehensive nuclear disarmament negotiations.

One of the issues discussed was whether NGOs would be able to participate in the negotiations – meaning that they would have permission to speak and submit written papers – or whether they would only be able to attend and observe the proceedings. The vast majority of states agreed that NGOs would be able to participate. However, states might be able to object to the participation of certain NGOs they believe are not genuinely engaged in the issue, but such objection would need to be accompanied by a written explanation circulated to all participants.

Another issue was whether the proceedings should be bound by consensus or open to a vote. The majority of states supported having the option to vote in order to ensure that one or two states are not able to veto proceedings, and this was reflected in the rules of procedure.

The agenda for the March negotiations will include a general exchange of views on elements for the prohibition treaty, including: principles and objectives, preambular elements, core prohibitions, effective legal measures, legal provisions and norms, institutional arrangements and other provisions.

136 Japanese parliamentarians join nuclear disarmament statement on eve of ban treaty negotiations

On Feb 15, the eve of the first session of the ban treaty negotiations, M.P. Keisuke Suzuki (LDP), Secretary-General of the Japan section of PNND, sent to New York the endorsements of 136 Japanese parliamentarians for A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Our Common Good’, a joint statement of legislators and religious leaders from around the world. The endorsers were from all political parties and included former foreign ministers, ambassadors and other high level parliamentarians.

The statement warns about the risks of a nuclear catastrophe, whether by accident, intent or miscalculation, calls upon world leaders to commit to nuclear abolition and to replace nuclear deterrence with shared security approaches to conflicts, and supports a nuclear weapons convention or framework of agreements that eliminate nuclear weapons.

‘In Japan, there is broad support among the public and among parliamentarians for the effort toward a nuclear-weapon-free world,’ said Mr Suzuki (LDP), ‘The number of MPs who responded positively is very encouraging.’

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

UNFOLD ZERO consultation as ban treaty negotiations commence

Also on Feb15 in New York, UNFOLD ZERO and PNND held the fourth in a series of Consultations on nuclear disarmament negotiations and parliamentary action.

The consultation included diplomats, lawyers and representatives of disarmament NGOs, parliamentary organisations, youth networks and religious & interfaith organisations. It focused on three key multilateral processes, i.e. the ban treaty negotiations, Non-Proliferation Treaty review cycle, and the 2018 UN High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament.

The ban treaty negotiations were introduced by a representative of Austria, the country that submitted the draft resolution to the UN on commencing the negotiations. The 2018 UN High Level Conference was introduced by a representative of Indonesia, the country which submitted (on behalf of the non-Aligned Movement) the resolution by which the UN decided to hold the conference. Some interesting observations and suggestions were made at the consultation.
Here are a few:

The ban treaty is not an alternative to the NPT, but rather a measure where-by non-nuclear States can undertake action to implement their nuclear disarmament obligations;

The UN High Level Conference has the capacity to engage all states: nuclear-armed, allied and non-nuclear.

The 2018 UN High Level Conference could build on the ban treaty negotiations by providing a platform for states to announce their signature and/or ratification, assuming the treaty is negotiated by then;

The High Level Conference could include multiple strands, some of which everyone could agree to and be adopted by consensus, and others of which could be adopted by vote and apply to those who vote in favour;

In addition to pushing for agreements at the High Level Conference on specific multilateral measures, governments should also be encouraged to make individual voluntary commitments and offer concrete measures that they have already adopted (a ‘gift basket’ for the conference).

This approach has been very productive at the Nuclear Security Summits and other high level conferences.

Civil society and the governments leading the process for the UN High Level Conference need to step up the visibility and promotion of the conference.

States that were present at the Feb 16 organisational meeting for the ban treaty (unofficial list)

Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Increase in arms transfers driven by demand in the Middle East and Asia, says SIPRI

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Annual report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

The volume of international transfers of major weapons has grown continuously since 2004 and increased by 8.4 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16, according to new data on arms transfers published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Notably, transfers of major weapons in 2012–16 reached their highest volume for any five-year period since the end of the cold war.


(click on the image to enlarge)

The flow of arms increased to Asia and Oceania and the Middle East between 2007–11 and 2012–16, while there was a decrease in the flow to Europe, the Americas and Africa. The five biggest exporters—the United States, Russia, China, France and Germany—together accounted for 74 per cent of the total volume of arms exports.

Asia: major increases for some states

Arms imports by states in Asia and Oceania increased by 7.7 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16 and accounted for 43 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

India was the world’s largest importer of major arms in 2012–16, accounting for 13 per cent of the global total. Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 it increased its arms imports by 43 per cent. In 2012–16 India’s imports were far greater than those of its regional rivals China and Pakistan.

Imports by countries in South East Asia increased 6.2 per cent from 2007–11 to 2012–16. Viet Nam made a particularly large jump from being the 29th largest importer in 2007–11 to the 10th largest in 2012–16, with arms imports increasing by 202 per cent.

‘With no regional arms control instruments in place, states in Asia continue to expand their arsenals’, said Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘While China is increasingly able to substitute arms imports with indigenous products, India remains dependent on weapons technology from many willing suppliers, including Russia, the USA, European states, Israel and South Korea’.

Middle East: arms imports almost double

Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 arms imports by states in the Middle East rose by 86 per cent and accounted for 29 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

Saudi Arabia was the world’s second largest arms importer in 2012-16, with an increase of 212 per cent compared with 2007–11. Arms imports by Qatar went up by 245 per cent. Although at lower rates, the majority of other states in the region also increased arms imports. ‘Over the past five years, most states in the Middle East have turned primarily to the USA and Europe in their accelerated pursuit of advanced military capabilities’, said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Despite low oil prices, countries in the region continued to order more weapons in 2016, perceiving them as crucial tools for dealing with conflicts and regional tensions.’

(Article continued on the right column)

(Click here for a version of this article in French or here for a version in Spanish.)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

Arms exporters: the USA accounts for one-third of total

With a one-third share of global arms exports, the USA was the top arms exporter in 2012– 16. Its arms exports increased by 21 per cent compared with 2007–11. Almost half of its arms exports went to the Middle East.

‘The USA supplies major arms to at least 100 countries around the world—significantly more than any other supplier state’, said Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Both advanced strike aircraft with cruise missiles and other precision-guided munitions and the latest generation air and missile defence systems account for a significant share of US arms exports.’

Russia accounted for a 23 per cent share of global exports in the period 2012–16. 70 per cent of its arms exports went to four countries: India, Viet Nam, China and Algeria.

China’s share of global arms exports rose from 3.8 to 6.2 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. It is now firmly a top-tier supplier, like France and Germany which accounted for 6 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively. The ongoing lower rate of French arms export deliveries may end soon because of a series of major contracts signed in the past five years. Despite a spike in arms exports in 2016, German arms exports—counted over a five-year period—decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16.

Other notable developments

Algeria was the largest arms importer in Africa with 46 per cent of all imports to the region.

The largest importers in sub-Saharan Africa—Nigeria, Sudan and Ethiopia—are all in conflict zones.

Total arms imports by states in the Americas decreased by 18 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. However, changes in import volumes varied considerably. Colombia’s arms imports decreased by 19 per cent, while Mexico’s arms imports grew by 184 per cent in 2012–16 compared with 2007–11.

Imports by states in Europe significantly decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. Initial deliveries to Europe of advanced combat aircraft as part of major contracts started in 2012–16 and further deliveries will drive import volumes up in the coming years.

Imports by Azerbaijan were 20 times higher than those of Armenia in 2012–16.

For editors

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database contains information on all international transfers of major weapons (including sales, gifts and production licences) to states, international organizations and armed non-state groups from 1950 to the most recent full calendar year, 2016. SIPRI data reflects the volume of deliveries of arms, not the financial value of the deals. As the volume of deliveries can fluctuate significantly year-onyear, SIPRI presents data for 5-year periods, giving a more stable measure of trends.

[Editor’s note: With regard to the financial value of arms transfers, SIPRi has published the following : “by adding together the data that states have made available on the financial value of their arms exports as well as estimates for those providing data on agreements or licences, it is possible to estimate that that the total value of the global arms trade in 2014 was at least $94.5 billion.* However, the actual figure is likely to be higher.”]

For information or interview requests contact Stephanie Blenckner (blenckner@sipri.org, +46 8 655 97 47) or Harri Thomas (harri.thomas@sipri.org, +46 70 972 39 50).

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

10th anniversary of the Oslo Process: The Historic start to the cluster bomb ban

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by the Cluster Munition Coalition

23rd February marks the 10th anniversary of the Oslo Process. Ten years ago today the Oslo Process began when 46 states took an extraordinary step by making a historic declaration to outlaw cluster munitions at a conference hosted by the Norwegian government in Oslo in February 2007.


The Oslo Process culminated with the signing of the Convention on Cluster Munitions within less than two years. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store with Soraj Ghulam Habib from Afghanistan. © Federico Visi

With persistent and concerted efforts by governments in close partnerships with the Cluster Munition Coalition, International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations agencies, the Oslo Conference was followed by ten regional meetings hosted by different countries, including by some of the most affected such as Lao PDR and Lebanon, to mobilize international support for a total ban on cluster munitions. In less than two years, the ambitious goal of the Oslo Declaration was achieved, when 94 states signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions during the first week of December 2008 in Oslo.

We asked Ambassador Steffen Kongstad of Norway, who played a crucial role during the Oslo Process, what the launch of the process meant to him. Ambassador Kongstad, currently Norway’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the OSCE, said: “The launch of the Oslo Process and the successful conclusion of the Convention on Cluster Munitions that followed demonstrated what can be achieved when affected countries, other interested countries and competent civil society organisations work together based on facts and humanitarian concerns and principles. The CCM has saved countless lives and limbs and prevented unacceptable human suffering. That was exactly the purpose and objective of this process.”

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can cluster bombs be abolished?

(Article continued from left column)

We asked Mr. Hrvoje Debač, Director at Office for Mine Action of the Republic of Croatia, what the Oslo Process and the Convention on Cluster Munitions mean to him.

Cluster munitions were known to be indiscriminate and for having caused disproportionate civilian casualties for decades before the start of the Oslo Process. The use of cluster munitions by the United States in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 and in Iraq in 2003 and the massive use of cluster munitions in Southern Lebanon by Israel and Hezbullah (a non-state armed group) in 2006, provided indisputable evidence of the indiscriminate nature of cluster munitions and caused global outrage. Cluster Munition Coalition campaigners, together a core group of states and other actors worked tirelessly to bring the devastation caused by cluster munitions to the attention of the international community and to urge the immediate ban of the weapons.

What the international community, and most importantly affected countries, have achieved through the Convention on Cluster Munitions is remarkable. To date, 119 nations have joined the convention. According to the Cluster Munition Monitor, 29 States Parties have destroyed nearly 1.4 million stockpiled cluster munitions containing 172.9 million submunitions. Seventeen States Parties and one non-signatory have ceased the production of cluster munitions. Last year, the United States suspended its transfers of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia and one of the world´s largest arms producers, Textron, announced plans to stop producing cluster munitions. The Saudi-led coalition ended its use of UK-made cluster bombs in Yemen.

Listen to this short interview with Ms. Habbouba Aoun, head of the Landmines Resource Center for Lebanon, a member of the Cluster Munition Coalition in Beirut. Ms. Aoun actively participated in the Oslo Process and she continues to advocate for a cluster munition-free world.

We congratulate governments and other actors for their efforts to eradicate cluster bombs. We also demand that the international community remains fully committed until all countries join the convention, until no one else gets killed or maimed by cluster bombs, until the Saudi-led coalition, Syria, Russia and any other actor that uses cluster munitions stops doing so, until all victims receive sufficient assistance, until all states destroy their stockpiles of the weapon, and until the world is free from the plague of cluster munitions.

[Editor’s note: As of June 2018, Among the major powers, the United States, Russia and China have not yet signed the convention.]

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Jordan: RC societies meeting kicks off Tuesday to promote culture of peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Petra, Jordan News Agency

The meeting of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region will convene Tuesday [Jan. 24] in Amman under the theme” together for Humanity.”

A statement by Jordan’s Red Crescent Monday said the three-day meeting will tackle a scope of tops including the emergency response to the challenges in Mena region, the importance of promoting a culture of peace, tolerance and non-violence, as well as issues of displacement and migration in the region.

Participants of the ninth edition of the meeting, which will be held under the auspices of Senate President Faisal Fayez, will also focus on issues of reducing urban risks, enhancing humanitarian response in cities and protecting volunteer health and safety.

Some 17 national societies from Mena region are participating in the conference, which is co-organized with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in addition to a number of observers that represent global and regional humanitarian societies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and Arab Red Crescent and Red Cross Organization (ARCO).

Question related to this article:
DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

Middle East Peace Conference Joint Declaration

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

Conference Declaration as published by France Diplomatie

I) Following the Ministerial meeting held in Paris on 3 June 2016, the Participants met in Paris on 15 January 2017 to reaffirm their support for a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They reaffirmed that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.


(Click on photo to enlarge)

* They emphasized the importance for the parties to restate their commitment to this solution, to take urgent steps in order to reverse the current negative trends on the ground, including continued acts of violence and ongoing settlement activity, and to start meaningful direct negotiations.

* They reiterated that a negotiated two-state solution should meet the legitimate aspirations of both sides, including the Palestinians’ right to statehood and sovereignty, fully end the occupation that began in 1967, satisfy Israel’s security needs and resolve all permanent status issues on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and also recalled relevant Security Council resolutions.

* They underscored the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as a comprehensive framework for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus contributing to regional peace and security.

* They welcomed international efforts to advance Middle East peace, including the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 which clearly condemned settlement activity, incitement and all acts of violence and terror, and called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground ; the recommendations of the Quartet on 1 July 2016 ; and the United States Secretary of State’s principles on the two-state solution on 28 December 2016.

* They noted the importance of addressing the dire humanitarian and security situation in the Gaza Strip and called for swift steps to improve the situation.

* They emphasized the importance for Israelis and Palestinians to comply with international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for a version in French)

Question related to this article:

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(continued from left column)

II) The Participants highlighted the potential for security, stability and prosperity for both parties that could result from a peace agreement. They expressed their readiness to exert necessary efforts toward the achievement of the two-state solution and to contribute substantially to arrangements for ensuring the sustainability of a negotiated peace agreement, in particular in the areas of political and economic incentives, the consolidation of Palestinian state capacities, and civil society dialogue. Those could include, inter alia :

* a European special privileged partnership ; other political and economic incentives and increased private sector involvement ; support to further efforts by the parties to improve economic cooperation ; continued financial support to the Palestinian authority in building the infrastructure for a viable Palestinian economy ;*

* supporting and strengthening Palestinian steps to exercise their responsibilities of statehood through consolidating their institutions and institutional capacities, including for service delivery ;*

* convening Israeli and Palestinian civil society fora, in order to enhance dialogue between the parties, rekindle the public debate and strengthen the role of civil society on both sides.*

III) Looking ahead, the Participants :*

* call upon both sides to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution, thus disassociating themselves from voices that reject this solution ;*

* call on each side to independently demonstrate, through policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution and refrain from unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of negotiations on final status issues, including, inter alia, on Jerusalem, borders, security, refugees and which they will not recognize ;*

* welcome the prospect of closer cooperation between the Quartet and Arab League members and other relevant actors to further the objectives of this Declaration.*

As follow-up to the Conference, interested Participants, expressing their readiness to review progress, resolved to meet again before the end of the year in order to support both sides in advancing the two-state solution through negotiations.*

France will inform the parties about the international community’s collective support and concrete contribution to the two-State solution contained in this joint declaration.*

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

UN Security Council underlines need to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from The UN News Centre

Expressing concern over the threat of terrorism and the risk that non-State actors may acquire or use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the United Nations Security Council today [15 December 2016] called on all countries to establish national controls to prevent proliferation of such weapons as well as their means of delivery.

In a resolution adopted today, the 15-member Council also reiterated the need to continue to strengthen ongoing cooperation among various intergovernmental bodies and entities concerning terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh), as well as counter-terrorism, through enhanced information sharing, coordination and technical assistance.

The Council further called on all UN Member States to ensure the full implementation of its resolution 1540 (2004) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It also called for strengthening the UN Trust Fund for Global and Regional Disarmament Activities through additional funding so that it is able to better assist countries in implementing their obligations under resolution 1540. . . .

STATEMENT BY JAN ELIASSON

Prior to today’s adoption of resolution by the Council, Deputy-Secretary-General Jan Eliasson issued the following statement:

Mr. President of the Security Council, Mr. Minister, I am extremely grateful for your generous and warm words. I thank the Security Council and the Spanish Presidency for arranging today’s debate. I am honoured to be here before you today in what is my final appearance at the Security Council. Let me take this opportunity to thank all of your for your friendship and cooperation over the past almost five years. I have highly treasured our dialogue and many professional and personal exchanges.

I also want to thank the Resolution 1540 Committee and its Panel of Experts, under the leadership of Ambassador Roman Oyarzun, for their work on the important subject under consideration today.

Preventing non-state actors from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction is among the most important responsibilities of the international community.

The Nuclear Security Summits, the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the close engagement by this Council on allegations of chemical weapon use have all played an important role in keeping us safe.

The Secretariat has also played its part.

In 2012, the Secretary-General convened a high-level meeting to strengthen legal frameworks against nuclear terrorism.

And after the accident at Fukushima, he chaired a high-level event to emphasize the connection between nuclear safety and security.

In 2013, he launched the investigation into the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Yet in our rapidly evolving global security environment, gaps will continue to open.

We have seen the rise of vicious non-state groups with no regard for human life. They actively seek weapons of mass destruction I am sure. And these weapons are increasingly accessible.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for an article in french on this subject)

Question related to this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

(Continued from left column)

We have seen this in the use of chemical weapons by Da’esh in Syria and Iraq.

There are legitimate concerns about the security of large stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile material outside international regulation.

Scientific advances have lowered barriers to the production of biological weapons. And emerging technologies, such as 3D printing and unmanned aerial vehicles, are adding to threats of an attack using a WMD.

We must also beware of the growing nexus between WMDs, terrorism and cyber security.

Malicious actions in cyberspace have real world consequences.

Non-state actors already have the capacity to abuse cyber technologies to create mass disruption.

The nightmare scenario of a hack on a nuclear power plant causing uncontrolled release of ionizing radiation is growing.

To stay ahead of this technological curve, the international community needs robust defences that are nimble and flexible.

Preventing a WMD attack by a non-state actor will be a long-term challenge that requires long-term responses.

Tools such as Resolution 1540 need to be fit for purpose.

I am pleased to see the Comprehensive Review, which has called for greater efforts to build the capacity of all States.

After all, this is a threat to our collective security.

We all need to boost our ability to respond.

A biological attack would be a public health disaster.

Yet there is no multilateral institutional response capability.

The Council also has a role to play in holding those that use chemical or other inhumane weapons accountable.

There can be no impunity.

This is a complex web of global threats and risks that requires a sophisticated global response.

We must take advantage of every opportunity to strengthen our collective defences.

In this regard, the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference was in many ways disappointing.

I count on all States to work together to prevent potential disasters.

And I count on this Council to lead.

In closing, let me emphasize that it is not simply a case of letting these weapons fall into the wrong hands.

There are no right hands for wrong weapons.

And weapons of mass destruction are simply wrong.

There is only one sure way to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction – that is their complete elimination.

We live in a world that is over armed.

A world where peace is under-funded.

I urge on behalf of the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon all States to fulfil their commitment to building a world free of all weapons of mass destruction.

Thank you Mr. President.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Bid Adieu To Voice Of International Law Jurist C.G Weeramantry…

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Live Law by Ashutosh Kumar, Assistant Professor, Geeta Law Institute, Kurushetra University.

International Jurist and renowned Scholar from third World Mr. C.G Weeramantry, former Vice-President of International Court of Justice and former judge of Srilanka Supreme court, passed away on 5 Jan 2017, leaving behind the legacy of his intellectual work in international law which will remain forever for world peace, humanity and environment.. His immense contribution to international law requires no introduction. In capacity as ICJ, Judge Mr. Weeramantry, gave new horizon to nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. His crystal clear work in dissenting opinion in Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapon case (I.C.J. Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226), ICJ 1996 made alarming request to world that use of nuclear weapon in any form is illegal and harmful to world peace. His opinion brought an era of non-proliferation diplomacy and call for nuclear disarmament.

He directly observed that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal in any circumstances whatsoever. It violates the fundamental principles of international law, and represents the very negation of the humanitarian concerns which underlie the structure of humanitarian law. It offends conventional law and, in particular, the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925, and Article 23(a) of the Hague Regulations of 1907. It contradicts the fundamental principle of the dignity and worth of the human person on which all law depends. It endangers the human environment in a manner which threatens the entirety of life on the planet. His keen sensitivity towards world peace and establishment of international rule of law affirms the faith on international law in saving planet from scourge of war.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

The second most important contribution of Mr. Weeramantry was towards balance between environmental protection and economic development in light of sustainable development. His separate opinion in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case ( Hungary vs. Slovakia)[ Gabichikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)Summary of the Judgment of 25 September 1997] added new dimension to the concept of sustainable development which is an eye opener for environmental policy maker as well as for environmental assessment asking to balance between economic development and ecology which is established norms of sustainable development. His prolific scholarly and vibrant writings on issues of world environment, human rights provided solution to emerging challenges of Environmental instability and crisis during armed conflict which can easily be referred in case of confusion on the subject.

As a international law jurist his vibrant writings has been quoted by many international bodies on issue of nuclear arm race and nuclear disarmament. He was among few third world jurist across the globe who brought the problems of third world countries at international fora asking for special attention. He was staunch supporter of international rule of law, nuclear disarmament, peace, environmental protection and equality which has been always the need of an hour for world peace and cooperation. His open and liberal approach towards human rights and adherence to principle international law projected universal solution to make world a safe and rational place for survival of mankind in association of nature. With his sad demise world has lost a great reformer and international jurist whose decisions and writings will always enlighten the path of humanity and peace across the globe.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, South Asia