This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/nuclear-weapons-its-high-time-for-australia-to-be-bold-and-call-for-ban
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Nuclear weapons: it's high time for Australia to be bold and call for a ban | Nuclear weapons: it's high time for Australia to be bold and call for a ban |
| (2 days later) | |
| All | All |
| countries are happy to condemn nuclear weapons in principle – even those who are | countries are happy to condemn nuclear weapons in principle – even those who are |
| building more of them. For many this involves spouting a couple of throwaway | building more of them. For many this involves spouting a couple of throwaway |
| lines about the evils of nukes while sitting on their hands. Judging by the | lines about the evils of nukes while sitting on their hands. Judging by the |
| evidence, Australia appears to be embracing this approach. As a result, Australia remains committed to a broken UN disarmament structure, refusing to support promising new initiatives. | evidence, Australia appears to be embracing this approach. As a result, Australia remains committed to a broken UN disarmament structure, refusing to support promising new initiatives. |
| Last week saw the | Last week saw the |
| intergovernmental conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons take | intergovernmental conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons take |
| place in Mexico. This is the second meeting in what will hopefully become a | place in Mexico. This is the second meeting in what will hopefully become a |
| mechanism for banning nuclear weapons under international law, modelled on | mechanism for banning nuclear weapons under international law, modelled on |
| previously successful frameworks to eliminate landmines and cluster munitions. | previously successful frameworks to eliminate landmines and cluster munitions. |
| Currently, nukes are the only | Currently, nukes are the only |
| weapon of mass destruction not banned under international law – biological weapons were outlawed in | weapon of mass destruction not banned under international law – biological weapons were outlawed in |
| 1975 and chemical weapons in 1997. There | 1975 and chemical weapons in 1997. There |
| is no way nuclear weapons can be used in line with the laws of war: they are | is no way nuclear weapons can be used in line with the laws of war: they are |
| designed to kill huge numbers of civilians indiscriminately and decimate | designed to kill huge numbers of civilians indiscriminately and decimate |
| infrastructure. Humanitarian organisations, including the Red Cross, agree that there can be no effective humanitarian response to a nuclear detonation. | infrastructure. Humanitarian organisations, including the Red Cross, agree that there can be no effective humanitarian response to a nuclear detonation. |
| Instead of supporting the effort to rid the world of this | Instead of supporting the effort to rid the world of this |
| scourge at the conference, our foreign minister opted to condemn it. Julie Bishop’s | scourge at the conference, our foreign minister opted to condemn it. Julie Bishop’s |
| response was to prescribe more of the same. According to her, advocating | response was to prescribe more of the same. According to her, advocating |
| banning nuclear weapons under international law “would divert attention | banning nuclear weapons under international law “would divert attention |
| from the sustained, practical steps needed for effective disarmament”. | from the sustained, practical steps needed for effective disarmament”. |
| This is ridiculous. | This is ridiculous. |
| The reason around 151 states support an outright ban on nuclear weapons | The reason around 151 states support an outright ban on nuclear weapons |
| is that those “sustained, practical steps” have been happening so slowly as to | is that those “sustained, practical steps” have been happening so slowly as to |
| be almost unnoticeable. The assertion that somehow advocating a ban on the | be almost unnoticeable. The assertion that somehow advocating a ban on the |
| deadliest weapons ever created would distract from real disarmament is spurious | deadliest weapons ever created would distract from real disarmament is spurious |
| and misleading. | and misleading. |
| If anything, an | If anything, an |
| effective prohibition movement will spur states to actually commit to making | effective prohibition movement will spur states to actually commit to making |
| those sustained, practical steps towards real disarmament, as occurred when the | those sustained, practical steps towards real disarmament, as occurred when the |
| movements to ban landmines and cluster bombs gained pace. Today, 113 states | movements to ban landmines and cluster bombs gained pace. Today, 113 states |
| have agreed to banning cluster munitions outright. Even those refusing to do | have agreed to banning cluster munitions outright. Even those refusing to do |
| so, such as our allies the United States, have been forced to limit their use. | so, such as our allies the United States, have been forced to limit their use. |
| The ban treaty on | The ban treaty on |
| landmines – the process upon which the movement to ban nukes is based – has | landmines – the process upon which the movement to ban nukes is based – has |
| reduced deaths and injuries from these weapons by 60% since it entered | reduced deaths and injuries from these weapons by 60% since it entered |
| into force in 1997. Australia initially resisted that agreement, too. | into force in 1997. Australia initially resisted that agreement, too. |
| Bishop suggests that “we have | Bishop suggests that “we have |
| seen progress”, citing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed | seen progress”, citing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed |
| almost half a century ago. As she points out, the Nuclear Weapons States | almost half a century ago. As she points out, the Nuclear Weapons States |
| – China, the US, the UK, France, and Russia – have formally committed under the | – China, the US, the UK, France, and Russia – have formally committed under the |
| NPT to disarmament. But this agreement is exceedingly weak: 50 years later, | NPT to disarmament. But this agreement is exceedingly weak: 50 years later, |
| there are still 17,000 nukes in the arsenals of nine states. A report by Gareth Evans in December 2012 showed that, of | there are still 17,000 nukes in the arsenals of nine states. A report by Gareth Evans in December 2012 showed that, of |
| the 27 relatively conservative nuclear weapons goals made during conferences in | the 27 relatively conservative nuclear weapons goals made during conferences in |
| 2009 and 2010, only two had shown “significant progress”, and none were fully | 2009 and 2010, only two had shown “significant progress”, and none were fully |
| implemented. | implemented. |
| It’s not just the current government that | It’s not just the current government that |
| is to blame – Labor was just as weak in practice, though they maintained a | is to blame – Labor was just as weak in practice, though they maintained a |
| pro-disarmament façade in public. Kevin Rudd used a visit to Hiroshima to declare that “we must be committed to the ultimate objective of a | pro-disarmament façade in public. Kevin Rudd used a visit to Hiroshima to declare that “we must be committed to the ultimate objective of a |
| nuclear weapons free world.” In 2012, Julia Gillard introduced a motion in the House of Representatives calling for “exploration of | nuclear weapons free world.” In 2012, Julia Gillard introduced a motion in the House of Representatives calling for “exploration of |
| legal frameworks for the abolition of nuclear weapons, including the | legal frameworks for the abolition of nuclear weapons, including the |
| possibility of a nuclear weapons convention, as prospects for multilateral | possibility of a nuclear weapons convention, as prospects for multilateral |
| disarmament improve.” | disarmament improve.” |
| Yet behind the scenes, Australia’s | Yet behind the scenes, Australia’s |
| diplomats under Labor actively worked against international efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons because they were worried that advocating disarmament may irritate our great | diplomats under Labor actively worked against international efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons because they were worried that advocating disarmament may irritate our great |
| and powerful friend, the United States. This is despite Labor’s “unequivocal commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons” | and powerful friend, the United States. This is despite Labor’s “unequivocal commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons” |
| and the commitment of several American allies to banning nuclear weapons. | and the commitment of several American allies to banning nuclear weapons. |
| Last year, Australia refused to endorse an | Last year, Australia refused to endorse an |
| 80-nation statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons because | 80-nation statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons because |
| it included a reference to a Red Cross resolution with which Australia disagrees – a decision criticised by both former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and former | it included a reference to a Red Cross resolution with which Australia disagrees – a decision criticised by both former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and former |
| foreign minister Gareth Evans. | foreign minister Gareth Evans. |
| In October, Australia | In October, Australia |
| made an intervention at the UN on nuclear weapons — which one well-known disarmament blog described as a “weasel” statement — seemingly in an effort to undermine the disarmament efforts of New Zealand. | made an intervention at the UN on nuclear weapons — which one well-known disarmament blog described as a “weasel” statement — seemingly in an effort to undermine the disarmament efforts of New Zealand. |
| Australia’s resistance to banning | Australia’s resistance to banning |
| nuclear weapons sits at odds with most of the world. Austria has announced it will | nuclear weapons sits at odds with most of the world. Austria has announced it will |
| be hosting a follow-up conference to Mexico, so it appears this process is | be hosting a follow-up conference to Mexico, so it appears this process is |
| gaining momentum towards a treaty. Australia should be there supporting it. | gaining momentum towards a treaty. Australia should be there supporting it. |
| • Disclosure: the author is a former intern of | • Disclosure: the author is a former intern of |
| the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Australia | the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Australia |
| • Addendum: click here to read a response to this article from Peter Tesch, the first assistant secretary of DFAT’s International Security Division | |
| Correction: The article was amended on 19 February 2014, 09:00am. The piece originally stated that Australia did not speak at the conference. It did and this has been amended. | Correction: The article was amended on 19 February 2014, 09:00am. The piece originally stated that Australia did not speak at the conference. It did and this has been amended. |