The following notice of motion
from Senator Lyn Alison, was passed unanimously by the Australian
Senate on Friday 8th Dec.
(Includes texts of Kofi Annan
Speech and Nobels Summit declaration tabled by Senator Lyn Alison)
NOTICE OF MOTION
On the next day of sitting I shall move that the Senate:
i) The Japanese resolution in UNGA First
"Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear
(L32), which Australia co-sponsored, was adopted on 26 October by
votes in favour, 4 against and 8 abstained;
ii) The joint Australia-Mexico-New
Zealand resolution on the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (L48) was passed by First
Committee by 175 votes in favour, 2 against and 4 abstained, on 26
b) notes that:
(i) UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at Princeton
University on 28
Nov, emphasised the urgency of eliminating nuclear weapons;
(ii) The Seventh Summit of Peace
Nobel's in Rome calls for the
elimination of nuclear weapons as a matter of the utmost urgency;
(iii) The United States and the
Russian Federation have made
significant cuts to their nuclear arsenal as agreed in the 2002
(c) supports ongoing Government efforts, including through the
opportunity of the next NPT Review Conference cycle commencing with
first session of the Preparatory Committee in April 2007, to:
i) Encourage further steps leading to nuclear
disarmament, to which
all States parties to the NPT are committed under Article VI of
Treaty, including deeper reductions in all types of nuclear
ii) Stress the necessity
of a diminishing role for nuclear weapons
in security policies to minimise the risk that these weapons will
be used and to facilitate the process of their total
Call on the nuclear-weapon states to further reduce the
operational status of nuclear systems in ways that promote
stability and security; and
iv) Emphasise the need for all States to
take further steps and
effective measures towards the total elimination of nuclear
with a view to achieving a peaceful and safe world free of nuclear
(d) urges all States which have not already done so to sign and
the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty as soon as possible and
support an early start to negotiation on a Fissile Material
Senator Lyn Allison
Leader, Australian Democrats
6 December 2006
Your attention is strongly drawn
to the urgent nature of these appeals made in the past week, by Mr
Kofi Anan and by nobel prizewinners assembled in Rome.
1) Nobel Laureates in Rome on
the Need to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
2) Kofi Annan at Princeton
University on need to abolish nuclear weapons
Thanks to Rhianna Tyson for
sending this as a PDF.
"Rhianna Tyson" <email@example.com>
1) Nobel Laureates in Rome on
the Need to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
We, Nobel Peace Laureates and
Laureate Organizations, gathered in Rome,
Italy, have for years been deeply disturbed by the lack of public
and political will at the highest levels of state paid to the need to
nuclear weapons. There are over 27,000 of these devices
civilization, with over 95% in the hands of Russia and the US. This
threatens everyone and thus every person must work to eliminate this
before it eliminates us.
We oppose the proliferation of
nuclear weapons to any state. We are faced
each day with a new crisis in proliferation exemplified by concerns
North Korea and Iran. However, our focus must be on the weapons
themselves for the only sustainable resolution to gain security is
universal elimination of the weapons.
The failure to address the
nuclear threat and to strengthen existing treaty
obligations to work for nuclear
weapons abolition shreds the fabric of
cooperative security. A world
with nuclear haves and have-nots is
fragmented and unstable, a fact underscored by the current threats
proliferation. In such an environment cooperation fails. Thus, nations
unable to address effectively the real threats of poverty,
degradation and nuclear catastrophe.
Nuclear weapons are more of a
problem than any problem they seek to
solve. In the hands of anyone, the weapons themselves remain an
unacceptable, morally reprehensible, impractical and dangerous
The use of a nuclear weapon
against a state without nuclear weapons is
patently immoral. Use against a state with nuclear weapons is also
These weapons have no value
against terrorists or criminals. Progress
toward a safer future is not thwarted from a lack of practical,
policy options. The problem is a lack of political will.
As Nobel Peace Prize Laureates we
commit to work collectively to achieve
the elimination of nuclear weapons, which we believe are unworthy
*We have heard the impassioned
warning from the Mayor of Hiroshima and
survivors of the atomic bombs and join him and the over 1500 cities
the world, including Rome, in their call to all nations, including
nuclear weapons arsenals - US, Russia, France, China, UK, Israel,
and Pakistan - to immediately commence negotiations to obtain
universal, legally verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. In past
have set forth practical steps to bring us to such a better world, and
reiterate the need for such policies as a entry into force of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, de alerting of the hair trigger launch
warning arsenals of thousands of hazardous weapons deployed now by
Russia and the US, obtain stricter IAEA controls over nuclear
pledges never to use a nuclear weapon first. Such efforts will help to
that nuclear capabilities are denied to terrorists.
We issue a serious warning that
without such efforts the Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty (NPT) could corrode opening the way for dozens of states to
nuclear armed, a frightening prospect. The NPT is a bargain in which
is obtained based on a promise by nuclear weapons states
negotiate nuclear weapons
elimination and offer peaceful uses of nuclear
technology. There is a fundamental dilemma which must end.
weapons states want to keep their
weapons indefinitely and at the same
time condemn others who would attempt to acquire them. Such flaunting
disarmament obligations is not sustainable.
The current situation is more
dangerous than during the Cold War. We are
gravely concerned regarding several current developments such as
stakeholders enabling rather than constraining proliferation,
of nuclear weapons systems, the aspiration to weaponize space,
making arms control and disarmament on earth all the more difficult,
declared policy of terrorist organizations to obtain nuclear
Given the critical nature of the
situation, we pledge to challenge, persuade
and inspire Heads of State to fulfil the moral and legal obligation
with every citizen to free us from this threat. We declare our
participate fully in a world summit where leaders of culture, arts,
business, and politics, will actively participate.
*As Nobel Peace Laureates,
conscience requires us to raise our voices,
inspire humankind, and to demand change in state policies. We call
the citizens of the world to join
us in this work.
The 7th World Summit of Nobel
Peace Laureates took place in Rome from
November 17 to 19 and was held, as were previous Summits, on the
initiative of Mikhail Gorbachev and the Mayor of Rome, Walter
The ceremony of the
acknowledgement of Man of Peace 2006 took place
before the opening of the Summit. It was awarded to Peter
The Summit was openend by Walter
Veltroni, Lech Walesa and Mairead
Corrigan Maguire. Those taking part in the Summit were: Frederik
Klerk, Mairead Corrigan Maguire,
Lech Walesa, Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo,
International Atomic Energy
Agency, International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War, International Peace Bureau, United
Organization, United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees, United
Nations Children's Fund, International Labour Organization,
Frontières, American Friends Service Committee, Red Cross,
Campaign to Ban Landmines, Pugwash Conference. Guests of honour
were: Mayor of Hiroshima and President of the World's Mayors for
Tadatoshi Akiba, Nobel Laureate for Medicine Rita Levi Montalcini, Man
Peace 2006 Peter Gabriel, Representative of the Weapons of Mass
Distruction Commission Jayantha Dhanapala, President of the
on Economic Trends and Greenhouse Crisis Foundation Jeremy Rifkin,
Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Nobuaki Tanaka and
General of the United Nations
Jose Antonio Ocampo.
2) Kofi Annan at Princeton
University on need to abolish nuclear weapons
28 November 2006
Department of Public Information * News and Media Division * New
In Lecture at Princeton university,
Secretary-General calls for progress
on both nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation
Following is the text of today's lecture by UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan at Princeton University:
Let me begin by saying how delighted I am to have
been invited to give this address by a School named after Woodrow
Wilson, the great pioneer of multilateralism and advocate of world
peace, who argued, among other things, for agreed international limits
on deadly weapons.
Princeton is indissolubly linked with the memory of
Albert Einstein and many other great scientists who played a role in
making this country the first nuclear power. That makes it an
especially appropriate setting for my address this evening, because my
main theme is the danger of nuclear weapons, and the urgent need to
confront that danger by preventing proliferation and promoting
disarmament, both at once. I shall argue that these two
objectives -- disarmament and non-proliferation -- are
inextricably linked, and that to achieve progress on either front we
must also advance on the other.
Almost everyone in today's world feels insecure,
but not everyone feels insecure about the same thing. Different
threats seem more urgent to people in different parts of the
Probably the largest number would give priority to
economic and social threats, including poverty, environmental
degradation and infectious disease.
Others might stress inter-State conflict; yet
others internal conflict, including civil war. Many people -
especially but not only in the developed world -- would now put
terrorism at the top of their list.
In truth, all these threats are interconnected, and
all cut across national frontiers. We need common global
strategies to deal with all of them -- and indeed, Governments are
coming together to work out and implement such strategies, in the UN
and elsewhere. The one area where there is a total lack of any
common strategy is the one that may well present the greatest danger
of all: the area of nuclear weapons.
Why do I consider it the greatest danger? For
First, nuclear weapons present a unique existential
threat to all humanity.
Secondly, the nuclear non-proliferation regime now
faces a major crisis of confidence. North Korea has withdrawn
from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while India, Israel,
and Pakistan have never joined it. There are, at least, serious
questions about the nature of Iran's nuclear programme. And
this, in turn, raises questions about the legitimacy, and credibility,
of the case-by-case approach to non-proliferation that the existing
nuclear powers have adopted.
Thirdly, the rise of terrorism, with the danger
that nuclear weapons might be acquired by terrorists, greatly
increases the danger that they will be used.
Yet, despite the grave, all-encompassing nature of
this threat, the Governments of the world are addressing it
selectively, not comprehensively.
In one way, that's understandable. The very
idea of global self-annihilation is unbearable to think about.
But, that is no excuse. We must try to imagine the human and
environmental consequences of a nuclear bomb exploding in one, or even
in several, major world cities -- or indeed of an all-out
confrontation between two nuclear-armed States.
In focusing on nuclear weapons, I am not seeking to
minimize the problem of chemical and biological ones, which are also
weapons of mass destruction, and are banned under international
treaties. Indeed, perhaps the most important, under-addressed
threat relating to terrorism -- one which acutely requires new
thinking -- is the threat of terrorists using a biological
But, nuclear weapons are the most dangerous.
Even a single bomb can destroy an entire city, as we know from the
terrible example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and today, there are bombs
many times as powerful as those. These weapons pose a unique
threat to humanity as a whole.
Forty years ago, understanding that this danger
must be avoided at all costs, nearly all States in the world came
together and forged a grand bargain, embodied in the NPT.
In essence, that treaty was a contract between the
recognized nuclear-weapon States at that time and the rest of the
international community. The nuclear-weapon States undertook to
negotiate in good faith on nuclear disarmament, to prevent
proliferation, and to facilitate the peaceful use of nuclear energy,
while separately declaring that they would refrain from threatening
non-nuclear-weapon States with nuclear weapons. In return, the
rest committed themselves not to acquire or manufacture nuclear
weapons, and to place all their nuclear activities under the
verification of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Thus, the treaty was designed both to prevent proliferation and to
advance disarmament, while assuring the right of all States, under
specified conditions, to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
From 1970 -- when it entered into force --
until quite recently, the NPT was widely seen as a cornerstone of
global security. It had confounded the dire predictions of its
critics. Nuclear weapons did not -- and still have not --
spread to dozens of States, as John F. Kennedy and others predicted in
the 1960s. In fact, more States have given up their ambitions
for nuclear weapons than have acquired them.
And yet, in recent years, the NPT has come under
withering criticism -- because the international community has been
unable to agree how to apply it to specific crises in South Asia, the
Korean peninsula and the Middle East; and because a few States parties
to the treaty are allegedly pursuing their own nuclear-weapons
Twice in 2005, Governments had a chance to
strengthen the Treaty's foundations -- first at the Review
conference in May, then at the World Summit in September. Both
times they failed -- essentially because they couldn't agree
whether non-proliferation or disarmament should come first.
The advocates of "non-proliferation first" --
mainly nuclear-weapon States and their supporters -- believe the
main danger arises not from nuclear weapons as such, but from the
character of those who possess them, and therefore, from the spread of
nuclear weapons to new States and to non-state actors (so called
"horizontal proliferation"). The nuclear-weapon States say
they have carried out significant disarmament since the end of the
cold war, but that their responsibility for international peace and
security requires them to maintain a nuclear deterrent.
"Disarmament first" advocates, on the other
hand, say that the world is most imperilled by existing nuclear
arsenals and their continual improvement (so called "vertical
proliferation"). Many non-nuclear-weapon States accuse the
nuclear-weapon States of retreating from commitments they made in 1995
(when the NPT was extended indefinitely) and reiterated as recently as
the year 2000. For these countries, the NPT "grand bargain"
has become a swindle. They note that the UN Security Council has
often described the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as a
threat to international peace and security, but has never declared
that nuclear weapons in and of themselvesare such a threat. They
see no serious movement towards nuclear disarmament, and claim that
the lack of such movement presages a permanent "apartheid" between
nuclear "haves" and "have-nots".
Both sides in this debate feel that the existence
of four additional States with nuclear weapons, outside the NPT,
serves only to sharpen their argument.
The debate echoes a much older argument: are
weapons a cause or a symptom of conflict? I believe both debates
are sterile, counterproductive, and based on false
Arms build-ups can give rise to threats leading to
conflict; and political conflicts can motivate the acquisition of
arms. Efforts are needed both to reduce arms and to reduce
conflict. Likewise, efforts are needed to achieve both
disarmament and non-proliferation.
Yet, each side waits for the other to move.
The result is that "mutually assured destruction" has been
replaced by mutually assured paralysis. This sends a terrible
signal of disunity and waning respect for the Treaty's authority.
It creates a vacuum that can be exploited.
I said earlier this year that we are
"sleepwalking towards disaster". In truth, it is worse than
that -- we are asleep at the controls of a fast-moving aircraft.
Unless we wake up and take control, the outcome is all too
An aircraft, of course, can remain airborne only if
both wings are in working order. We cannot choose between
non-proliferation and disarmament. We must tackle both tasks
with the urgency they demand.
Allow me to offer my thoughts to each side in
To those who insist on disarmament first, I say
-- Proliferation is not a threat only, or even
mainly, to those who already have nuclear weapons. The more
fingers there are on nuclear triggers, and the more those fingers
belong to leaders of unstable States -- or, even worse, non-State
actors -- the greater the threat to all humankind.
-- Lack of progress on disarmament is no excuse for
not addressing the dangers of proliferation. No State should
imagine that, by pushing ahead with a nuclear-weapon programme, it can
pose as a defender of the NPT; still less that it will persuade others
-- I know some influential States, which themselves
have scrupulously respected the Treaty, feel strongly that the
nuclear-weapon States have not lived up to their disarmament
obligations. But, they must be careful not to let their
resentment put them on the side of the proliferators. They
should state clearly that acquiring prohibited weapons never serves
the cause of their elimination. Proliferation only makes
disarmament even harder to achieve.
-- I urge all States to give credit where it is
due. Acknowledge disarmament whenever it does occur.
Applaud the moves which nuclear-weapon States have made, whether
unilaterally or through negotiation, to reduce nuclear arsenals or
prevent their expansion. Recognize that the nuclear-weapon
States have virtually stopped producing new fissile material for
weapons, and are maintaining moratoria on nuclear tests.
-- Likewise, support even small steps to contain
proliferation, such as efforts to improve export controls on goods
needed to make weapons of mass destruction, as mandated by Security
Council resolution 1540.
-- And please support the efforts of the
Director-General of the IAEA and others to find ways of guaranteeing
that all States have access to fuel and services for their civilian
nuclear programmes without spreading sensitive technology.
Countries must be able to meet their growing energy needs through such
programmes, but we cannot afford a world where more and more countries
develop the most sensitive phases of the nuclear fuel cycle
-- Finally, do not encourage, or allow, any State
to make its compliance with initiatives to eliminate nuclear weapons,
or halt their proliferation, conditional on concessions from other
States on other issues. The preservation of human life on this
planet is too important to be used as a hostage.
To those who insist on non-proliferation first, I
--True, there has been some progress on nuclear
disarmament since the end of the cold war. Some States have
removed many nuclear weapons from deployment, and eliminated whole
classes of nuclear delivery systems. The US and Russia have
agreed to limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons they deploy,
and have removed non-strategic ones from ships and submarines; the US
Congress refused to fund the so called "bunker-buster" bomb; most
nuclear test sites have been closed; and there are national moratoria
on nuclear tests, while three nuclear-weapon States -- France,
Russia and the UK -- have ratified the Comprehensive
-- Yet, stockpiles remain alarmingly high:
27,000 nuclear weapons reportedly remain in service, of which about
12,000 are actively deployed.
-- Some States seem to believe they need fewer
weapons, but smaller and more useable ones -- and even to have
embraced the notion of using such weapons in conflict. All of
the NPT nuclear-weapon States are modernizing their nuclear arsenals
or their delivery systems. They should not imagine that this
will be accepted as compatible with the NPT. Everyone will see
it for what it is: a euphemism for nuclear re-armament.
-- Nor is it clear how these States propose to deal
with the four nuclear-weapon-capable States outside the NPT.
They warn against a nuclear domino effect, if this or that country is
allowed to acquire a nuclear capability, but they do not seem to know
how to prevent it, or how to respond to it once it has happened.
Surely they should at least consider attempting a "reverse domino
effect", in which systematic and sustained reductions in nuclear
arsenals would devalue the currency of nuclear weapons, and encourage
others to follow suit.
-- Instead, by clinging to and modernizing their
own arsenals, even when there is no obvious threat to their national
security that nuclear weapons could deter, nuclear-weapon States
encourage others -- particularly those that do face real threats in
their own region -- to regard nuclear weapons as essential, both to
their security and to their status. It would be much easier to
confront proliferators, if the very existence of nuclear weapons were
universally acknowledged as dangerous and ultimately
-- Similarly, States that wish to discourage others
from undertaking nuclear or missile tests could argue their case much
more convincingly if they themselves moved quickly to bring the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force, halt their own
missile testing, and negotiate a robust multilateral instrument
regulating missiles. Such steps would do more than anything else
to advance the cause of non-proliferation.
-- Important Powers such as Argentina, Brazil,
Germany and Japan have shown, by refusing to develop them, that
nuclear weapons are not essential to either security or status.
South Africa destroyed its arsenal and joined the NPT. Belarus,
Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up nuclear weapons from the former Soviet
nuclear arsenal. And Libya has abandoned its nuclear and
chemical weapons programmes. The nuclear weapon States have
applauded all these examples. They should follow them.
-- Finally, Governments and civil society in many
countries are increasingly questioning the relevance of the cold war
doctrine of nuclear deterrence -- the rationale used by all States
that possess nuclear weapons -- in an age of growing threats from
non-State actors. Do we not need, instead, to develop agreed
strategies for preventing proliferation?
-- For all these reasons, I call on all the States
with nuclear weapons to develop concrete plans -- with specific
timetables -- for implementing their disarmament commitments.
And I urge them to make a joint declaration of intent to achieve the
progressive elimination of all nuclear weapons, under strict and
effective international control.
In short, my friends, the only way forward is to
make progress on both fronts -- non-proliferation and disarmament --
at once. And we will not achieve this unless at the same time we
deal effectively with the threat of terrorism, as well as the threats,
both real and rhetorical, which drive particular States or regimes to
seek security, however misguidedly, by developing or acquiring nuclear
It is a complex and daunting task, which calls for
leadership, for the establishment of trust, for dialogue and
negotiation. But first of all, we need a renewed debate, which
must be inclusive, must respect the norms of international
negotiations, and must reaffirm the multilateral approach -- Woodrow
Wilson's approach, firmly grounded in international institutions,
treaties, rules, and norms of appropriate behaviour.
Let me conclude by appealing to young people
everywhere, since there are -- I am glad to see -- so many of them
My dear young friends, you are already admirably
engaged in the struggle for global development, for human rights and
to protect the environment. Please bring your energy and
imagination to this debate. Help us to seize control of the
rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked, and bring it to a safe
landing before it is too late.