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 2 Version 3
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
(6 months later)
All All 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 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.
countries are happy to condemn nuclear weapons in principle – even those who are Last week saw the intergovernmental conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons take place in Mexico. This is the second meeting in what will hopefully become a mechanism for banning nuclear weapons under international law, modelled on previously successful frameworks to eliminate landmines and cluster munitions.
building more of them. For many this involves spouting a couple of throwaway Currently, nukes are the only weapon of mass destruction not banned under international law – biological weapons were outlawed in 1975 and chemical weapons in 1997. There 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 infrastructure. Humanitarian organisations, including the Red Cross, agree that there can be no effective humanitarian response to a nuclear detonation.
lines about the evils of nukes while sitting on their hands. Judging by the 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 response was to prescribe more of the same. According to her, advocating banning nuclear weapons under international law “would divert attention from the sustained, practical steps needed for effective disarmament”.
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. This is ridiculous. 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 be almost unnoticeable. The assertion that somehow advocating a ban on the deadliest weapons ever created would distract from real disarmament is spurious and misleading.
Last week saw the If anything, an effective prohibition movement will spur states to actually commit to making those sustained, practical steps towards real disarmament, as occurred when the movements to ban landmines and cluster bombs gained pace. Today, 113 states 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.
intergovernmental conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons take The ban treaty on 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 into force in 1997. Australia initially resisted that agreement, too.
place in Mexico. This is the second meeting in what will hopefully become a Bishop suggests that “we have seen progress”, citing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed 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 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 the 27 relatively conservative nuclear weapons goals made during conferences in 2009 and 2010, only two had shown “significant progress”, and none were fully implemented.
mechanism for banning nuclear weapons under international law, modelled on It’s not just the current government that 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 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 possibility of a nuclear weapons convention, as prospects for multilateral disarmament improve.”
previously successful frameworks to eliminate landmines and cluster munitions. 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 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.
Currently, nukes are the only Last year, Australia refused to endorse an 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 foreign minister Gareth Evans.
weapon of mass destruction not banned under international law – biological weapons were outlawed in 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.
1975 and chemical weapons in 1997. There Australia’s resistance to banning 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 gaining momentum towards a treaty. Australia should be there supporting it.
is no way nuclear weapons can be used in line with the laws of war: they are • Disclosure: the author is a former intern of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Australia
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.
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
response was to prescribe more of the same. According to her, advocating
banning nuclear weapons under international law “would divert attention
from the sustained, practical steps needed for effective disarmament”.
This is ridiculous.
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
be almost unnoticeable. The assertion that somehow advocating a ban on the
deadliest weapons ever created would distract from real disarmament is spurious
and misleading.
If anything, an
effective prohibition movement will spur states to actually commit to making
those sustained, practical steps towards real disarmament, as occurred when the
movements to ban landmines and cluster bombs gained pace. Today, 113 states
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.
The ban treaty on
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
into force in 1997. Australia initially resisted that agreement, too.
Bishop suggests that “we have
seen progress”, citing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed
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
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
the 27 relatively conservative nuclear weapons goals made during conferences in
2009 and 2010, only two had shown “significant progress”, and none were fully
implemented.
It’s not just the current government that
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
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
possibility of a nuclear weapons convention, as prospects for multilateral
disarmament improve.”
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
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.
Last year, Australia refused to endorse an
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
foreign minister Gareth Evans.
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.
Australia’s resistance to banning
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
gaining momentum towards a treaty. Australia should be there supporting it.
• Disclosure: the author is a former intern of
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• 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.