Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

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

Open Letter to President-elect Donald Trump on Nuclear Weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A letter prepared by and published by The Nuclear Age Foundation

As president of the United States, you will have the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not overtly threatened or used during your term of office.

The most certain way to fulfill this responsibility is to negotiate with the other possessors of nuclear weapons for their total elimination. The U.S. is obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to engage in such negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

A nuclear war, any nuclear war, would be an act of insanity. Between nuclear weapons states, it would lead to the destruction of the attacking nation as well as the attacked. Between the U.S. and Russia, it would threaten the survival of humanity.

There are still more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, of which the United States possesses more than 7,000. Some 1,000 of these remain on hair-trigger alert. A similar number remain on hair-trigger alert in Russia. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Even if nuclear weapons are not used intentionally, they could be used inadvertently by accident or miscalculation. Nuclear weapons and human fallibility are a dangerous mix.

Nuclear deterrence presupposes a certain view of human behavior. It depends on the willingness of political leaders to act rationally under all circumstances, even those of extreme stress. It provides no guarantees or physical protection. It could fail spectacularly and tragically.

You have suggested that more nations – such as Japan, South Korea and even Saudi Arabia – may need to develop their own nuclear arsenals because the U.S. spends too much money protecting other countries. This nuclear proliferation would make for a far more dangerous world. It is also worrisome that you have spoken of dismantling or reinterpreting the international agreement that places appropriate limitations on Iran’s nuclear program and has the support of all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.

As other presidents have had, you will have at your disposal the power to end civilization as we know it. You will also have the opportunity, should you choose, to lead in ending the nuclear weapons era and achieving nuclear zero through negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

We, the undersigned, urge you to choose the course of negotiations for a nuclear weapons-free world. It would be a great gift to all humanity and all future generations.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

Partial list of initial signatories. For full list and link to add your signature, click here.

David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Richard Falk, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Daniel Ellsberg, Distinguished Fellow, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Oliver Stone, Film director

Setsuko Thurlow, Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Survivor

Anders Wijkman, Co-President, Club of Rome

Helen Caldicott, Founding President, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ben Ferencz, Former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor

Robert Jay Lifton, Columbia University

Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C., Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament

Martin Hellman, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University

Robert Laney, Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Rick Wayman, Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Ruben Arvizu, Latin America Representative, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute

Medea Benjamin, Co-Founder, Code Pink

Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute, American University

Barry Ladendorf, President, Veterans for Peace

Dr. Hafsat Abiola-Costello, Founder and President, Kudirat Initiative for Democracy

Marie Dennis, Co-President, Pax Christi International

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Confessions of a Megalomaniac by Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom (Israel)

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. ,

An article by Uri Avnery from Transcend

The Arab taxi driver who brought me to Ramallah had no trouble with the Israeli border posts. He just evaded them.

Saves a lot of trouble.

I was invited by Mahmood Abbas, the President of the Palestinian National Authority (as well as of the PLO and the Fatah movement) to take part in joint Palestinian-Israeli consultations in advance of the international conference in Paris.

Since Binyamin Netanyahu has refused to take part in the Paris event side by side with Mahmood Abbas, the Ramallah meeting was to demonstrate that a large part of Israeli society does support the French initiative.

SIMPLE AS it sounds, the Ramallah meeting was not simple at all.

Before the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004, such meetings were almost routine. Since our groundbreaking first meeting in Beirut in 1982, during the Israeli blockade, Arafat met many Israelis.

Arafat had almost absolute moral authority, and even his home-grown rivals accepted his judgment. Since, after our first meeting, he decided that Israeli-Palestinian meetings served the cause of Palestinian-Israeli peace, he encouraged many such events.

After his murder, the opposite trend gained the upper hand. Palestinian extremists held that any meetings with Israelis, whoever they might be, served “normalization” – a terrible, terrible bogeyman.

Abbas has now put an end to this nonsense. Like me, he believes that Palestinian statehood and independence can come about only through a joint struggle of the peace forces on both sides, with the help of international forces.

In this spirit, he invited us to Ramallah, since Palestinians are not normally allowed into Israeli territory.

He seated me next to him on the stage, and so the meeting started.

MAHMOOD ABBAS – or “Abu Mazen”‘, as he is generally known – was gracious enough to mention that he and I have been friends for 34 years since we first met in Tunis, soon after the PLO had left Beirut and moved there.

Through a number of years, when my friends and I came to Tunis, the same procedure was followed: first we met with Abu Mazen, who was in charge of Israeli affairs, and drew up plans for joint action. Then we all moved to Arafat’s office. Arafat, who had an almost uncanny capacity for making quick decisions, would decide within minutes “yes” or ‘no”.

There could hardly be two more different characters than Abu-Amar (Arafat) and Abu-Mazen. Arafat was a “warm” type. He embraced and kissed his visitors in the old Arab style – a kiss on each cheek for ordinary visitors, three kisses for preferred ones. After five minutes, you felt as if you had known him all your life.

Mahmood Abbas is a much more reserved person. He embraces and kisses too, but it does not come quite as naturally as with Arafat. He is more withdrawn. He looks more like a high-school principal.

I have a lot of respect for Mahmood Abbas. He needs tremendous courage to do his job – the leader of a people under brutal military occupation, compelled to cooperate with the occupation in some matters, endeavoring to resist in others. The aim of his people is to endure and survive. He is good at that.

When I complimented him on his courage, he laughed and said that it was more courageous of me to enter Beirut during the siege of 1982. Thanks.

The Israeli government succeeded, even before Netanyahu, in splitting the Palestinians in the country into two. By the simple device of refusing to honor their solemn pledge under Oslo to create four “safe passages” between The West Bank and Gaza, they made a split almost inevitable.

(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)

Now, while officially treating the moderate Abbas as a friend and the extremist Hamas in Gaza as an enemy, our government behaves exactly the other way. Hamas is tolerated, Abbas is considered an enemy. That seems perverse but is really quite logical: Abbas can sway public opinion throughout the world in favor of a Palestinian state, Hamas cannot.

AFTER THE Ramallah meeting, in a private session, I submitted to Abbas a plan for consideration.

It is based on the appreciation that Netanyahu will never agree to real peace negotiations, since these will lead inevitably to the Two-State Solution, tut-tut-tut.

I propose to convene a “Popular Peace Conference”, which will meet, say, once a month inside the country. In each session, the conference will deal with one of the paragraphs of the future peace agreement, such as the final location of the borders, the character of the borders (open?), Jerusalem, Gaza, water resources, security arrangements, refugees, and so on.

An equal number of experts and activists from each side will deliberate, put everything on the table and thrash it all out. If agreement can be reached, wonderful. If not, the proposals of both sides will be clearly defined and the item left for later.

In the end, after, say, half a year, the final “popular peace agreement” will be published, even with defined disagreements, for the guidance of the peace movements on both sides. Deliberations on the disagreements will continue until agreement is found.

Abbas listened attentively, as is his wont, and in the end I promised to send him a written memorandum. I just did so, after consulting with some of my colleagues, like Adam Keller, the Gush Shalom spokesman.

Mahmood Abbas is now preparing to attend the Paris conference, the official aim of which is to mobilize the world for the Two-State Solution.

SOMETIMES I WONDER how I do not get infected with megalomania. (Some of my friends believe that this cannot happen to me, since I already am a megalomaniac.)

A few weeks after the end of the 1948 war, a tiny group of young people in the new State of Israel met in Haifa to debate a path to peace based on what is now called the Two-State solution. One was a Jew (me), one a Muslim and one a Druze. I, just released from hospital, was still wearing my army uniform.

The group was completely ignored by everybody. No takers.

Some ten years later, when I was already a member of the Knesset (as, by the way, were the other two), I went abroad to see who could be convinced. I wandered around Washington DC, met with important people in the White House, the State Department and the UN delegations in New York. On the way home I was received in the Foreign Offices in London, Paris and Berlin.

No takers, anywhere. A Palestinian state? Nonsense. Israel must deal with Egypt, Jordan et al.

I made many dozens of speeches about this proposal in the Knesset. Some powers started to take it up. The first was the Soviet Union, though rather late, under Leonid Brezhnev (1969). Others followed.

Today there is no one around who believes in anything but the Two-State Solution. Even Netanyahu pretends to believe in it, if only the Palestinians would become Jews or emigrate to Greenland.

Yes, I know that I didn’t do it. History did it. But I might be excused for feeling just a tiny little bit of pride. Or a mini-megalomania.

THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION is neither good nor bad. It is the only.

The only solution there is.

I know that there are a number of good, even admirable people who believe in the so-called One-State Solution. I would ask them to consider the details: what it would look like, how it would actually function, the army, the police, the economy, the parliament. Apartheid? Perpetual civil war?

No. Since 1948 everything has changed, but nothing has changed.

Sorry, the Two-State Solution is still the only game in town.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

The Elders welcome Paris Mideast peace conference, urge all P5 states to show leadership

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. ,

A press release from The Elders

The Elders welcomed the latest international conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held in Paris on 15 January 2017 at the initiative of the French Government, and commended their leadership in pushing for a viable two-state solution.

They urged all the wider international community, and in particular all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to play an active and concerted role to secure a lasting and just peace for the peoples of Israel and Palestine.

The Elders reiterated their support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334 passed in December 2016 which condemned all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and all acts of violence and terror. They hoped this consensus in the Council is maintained in the coming months as the best chance of ensuring the survival of the two-state solution.

Kofi Annan, Chair of The Elders, said:

“The French government has worked hard over the past twelve months to garner international support for a viable two-state solution. It is vital that these calls are heeded and efforts redoubled by all key players, especially on the UN Security Council. Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and all States in the region and beyond, must abjure obstructionism which will only prolong the sufferings of Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

Lakhdar Brahimi, Elder and international conflict mediator, said:

“Yesterday’s Paris conference sent out an important message to the world. Scores of nations gathered, demonstrating the international community’s desire to promote the best hope for a sustainable peace for Israelis and Palestinians: two states living peacefully side by side. Any moves that imperil that solution, including settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, are incompatible with international law and UN resolutions, including Security Council Resolution 2334 of December 2016.”

Question related to this article:
DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

Civil Society and the UN High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

December 2016 Newsletter of UNFOLD ZERO

On December 3, 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted ground-breaking Resolution 71/71, supported by over 140 countries, calling for the start of negotiations on an international treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, and affirming its earlier decision to hold a High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament no later than 2018 to review progress on such a treaty.

The UN has previously held high level meetings on nuclear disarmament, but these were not much more than talk-shops.

In contrast, the 2018 event will be the first time the UN General Assembly has held a high level conference on nuclear disarmament. Such an event carries with it the expectation of deliberations to reach an agreement or agreements on concrete nuclear disarmament measures.

The 2018 UN Conference, and its preparatory process, provide a unique opportunity for civil society and like-minded governments to elevate the issue of nuclear disarmament globally and build political pressure on the nuclear-reliant States to agree to specific nuclear disarmament proposals at the conference.

(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)

Similar UN high level conferences on other difficult global issues – such as sustainable development, climate change and refugees – have had considerable success engaging all relevant States and civil society to achieve concrete results.

The UN conference on nuclear disarmament could, for example, aim for:

• Non-nuclear States (and maybe others) to announce at the conference their ratification of the nuclear prohibition treaty which will most likely be negotiated by 2018 (see UN agrees to nuclear prohibition negotiations);

• Agreement by the nuclear armed and allied States that their sole purpose for nuclear weapons is to deter other nuclear weapons and that they would never use nuclear weapons first;

• A decision to convene a conference for the establishment of a Middle East Zone free from nuclear weapons and other WMD;

• A framework agreement (or political declaration) to achieve the prohibition of any use of nuclear weapons and the phased elimination of nuclear weapons.
 
UNFOLD ZERO is organising a number of private meetings on the UN High Level Conference with governments, as well as open consultation meetings with non-governmental organisations in Geneva, London, New York, Vienna, Washington and other locations in early 2017.

At these meetings we will discuss strategy and campaign activities to build success for the UN High Level Conference.

For more information see UN to hold High Level Conference on nuclear disarmament.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Building on gender promise, Guterres names three women to top UN posts

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the UN News Centre

The United Nations Secretary-General-designate, António Guterres today [December 15] announced that he will be appointing Amina J. Mohammed of Nigeria as the UN deputy chief, on his assumption of office as the ninth chief of the global Organization in January 2017.


Amina J. Mohammed of Nigeria. UN Photo/Mark Garten

Ms. Amina J. Mohammed is currently the Minister of Environment of Nigeria, where she steers the country’s efforts to protect the natural environment and conserve resources for sustainable development, read a statement issued by Mr. Guterres’s office.

She also served as Special Advisor to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Post-2015 Development Planning, where she was instrumental in bringing about the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Before joining the UN, Ms. Mohammed worked for three successive administrations in Nigeria, serving as Special Advisor on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). She is also an Adjunct Professor in Development Practice at New York’s Columbia University, and serves on numerous international advisory boards and panels.

Born in 1961, and educated in Nigeria and the UK, Ms. Mohammed is married with six children.

The Secretary-General-designate also announced the appointment of Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti of Brazil as his Chef de Cabinet and that he will create the position of Special Advisor on Policy, and appointed Ms. Kyung-wha Kang of the Republic of Korea to this new role.

“I am happy to count on the efforts of these three highly competent women, whom I have chosen for their strong backgrounds in global affairs, development, diplomacy, human rights and humanitarian action,” said Secretary-General-designate Guterres, in the statement adding:

“These appointments are the foundations of my team, which I will continue to build, respecting my pledges on gender parity and geographical diversity.”

Ms. Ribeiro Viotti is presently the Under-Secretary for Asia and the Pacific at the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A career diplomat since 1976, she served most recently as Brazil’s Ambassador of to Germany (from 2013 to 2016) and as Brazil’s Permanent Representative to the UN (from 2007 to 2011).

Ms. Kang is currently the Chief of the Secretary-General-designate’s Transition Team. She has served as Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator since April 2013, and was Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights from January 2007 to March 2013.

Question for this article:

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Celebrating our success in 2016; Supporting ICBL-CMC Efforts in 2017

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Excerpt from the December 2016 edition of Newsletter of the Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Cluster Munition Coalition

2016 was an important year for advancing bans on both landmines and cluster munitions, requiring swift responses to ongoing conflicts that threatened gains made in previous years. Thanks to everyone who supported the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Cluster Munition Coalition (ICBL-CMC) for contributing to this success. Here are just a few highlights from what we achieved together this year:


(Click on photo to enlarge)

Cuba and Palau joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions, bringing the total number of States Parties to 100, with progress towards ratification advanced in dozens of other countries

The US government halted the transfer of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia while Textron, the last US-producer of cluster munitions, announced a halt to this production

A peace agreement in Colombia made possible important advancements in mine clearance, supported by significant new commitments of international support, and contributed to a decline in new mine victims

Sri Lanka announced plans to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty while government representatives from Myanmar engaged in discussions in Geneva for the first time, around joining the Treaty

Poland completed destruction of over one million stockpiled landmines a year before treaty deadline, bringing the total number of destroyed stockpiled landmines to more than 51 million

(article continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

Can cluster bombs be abolished?

(article continued from left column)

Some 60 countries made progress in clearing minefields and cluster munition remnants from past and ongoing conflicts

In 26 countries, national campaigns, including mine/cluster munition survivors, actively campaigned for improved recognition of their rights and access to necessary services

Unfortunately, our work is not done. In 2017, when we will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the campaign, these are some of the biggest challenges that we will face:

There was a sharp rise in people killed or injured by mines and ERW, mainly due to acute conflict in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine.

Use of improvised landmines by non-state armed groups increased, even while use by States continued to be extremely limited; significant and ongoing use of cluster munitions was recorded in Syria and Yemen.

While there were several extraordinary pledges to support mine action in Colombia, Iraq and Laos, overall financial contributions to mine action were down, challenging efforts to achieve a mine-free world in 2025.

79 states have still not joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions and 35 have not joined the Mine Ban Treaty.

Improvements have been made in services and programs available to landmine and cluster munition victims but more must be done to ensure that victims are reaching these services and that their rights are upheld.

The ICBL-CMC is committed to continue working for a world that is free of both landmines and cluster munitions. We hope you will continue to support us through all of your efforts. We also ask that you consider making a donation of whatever you can to support the ICBL-CMC and its members from around the world in 2017 and beyond.

Thank you and all the best for 2017!

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

200 legal scholars back right to boycott Israel

.DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. .

An article by Ali Abunimah from the Electronic Intifada

More than 200 European legal scholars have signed a statement affirming that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality represents “a lawful exercise of freedom of expression.”

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) is welcoming the statement as “a major blow to Israel’s repressive legal war” against the movement.

“This momentous statement by European jurists not only vindicates BDS human rights defenders who have insisted that BDS is protected free speech,” said the BNC’s Europe campaigns coordinator Riya Hassan. “It will undoubtedly add a crucial layer of legal protection for European BDS networks and citizens in their efforts to end European complicity in Israel’s regime of oppression, especially in military trade and research, banking and corporate involvement in Israel’s violations of international law.”

The BNC notes that the signatories include world-renowned legal figures, including South African jurist John Dugard, who serves as a judge at the International Court of Justice in The Hague; José Antonio Martín Pallín, an emeritus justice of Spain’s supreme court; British human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield; Lauri Hannikainen, member of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and Géraud de la Pradelle, who led the civic inquiry into the involvement of France in the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

While the jurists do not take a position for or against BDS, they say that “states that outlaw BDS are undermining this basic human right and threatening the credibility of human rights by exempting a particular state from the advocacy of peaceful measures designed to achieve its compliance with international law.”

(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?

(Article continued from left column)

They point to France, the United Kingdom, Canada and various US states, where legislatures and executives “have adopted laws and taken executive action to suppress, outlaw and in some instances, criminalize the advocacy of BDS.”

By contrast, Sweden, Ireland, the Netherlands, the European Union and even the US State Department have all recently affirmed that advocating for BDS is a protected right.

“States and organizations that view BDS as a lawful exercise of freedom of expression are correct,” the legal scholars say. “Whether one approves of the aims or methods of BDS is not the issue. The issue is whether in order to protect Israel an exception is to be made to the freedom of expression that occupies a central and pivotal place among fundamental human rights.”

“The right of citizens to advocate for BDS is part and parcel of the fundamental freedoms protected by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights,” signatory Robert Kolb, a professor of international law at the University of Geneva and a former legal adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Swiss foreign ministry, said in a statement from the BNC.

“No government ever attempted to outlaw or criminalize the anti-apartheid movement for advocating boycott, disinvestment or sanctions to compel South Africa to abandon its racist policies,” Dugard said. “BDS should be seen as a similar movement and treated accordingly.”

The legal scholars join hundreds of European human rights organizations and civil society groups that have called on governments to end repression of Palestine solidarity activism.

Speaking on behalf of the BNC, Ingrid Jaradat welcomed the statement as “a defining moment in the struggle against Israel’s patently repressive legal war on the BDS movement for Palestinian rights.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe