International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

Bulletin 19 - News

NGOs Visit to Diplomatic Missions in Geneva

Gert G. Harigel

The International Peace Bureau (IPB) organized a visit of the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA) and Geneva Diplomatic Missions for a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on 9th August 2001 (Nagasaki Day). The group consisted of one participant from the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), one from Mouvement de la Paix (France), one from Sussex Peace Alliance (Britain), one from War Resisters International (WRI, Britain), three from IPB (Switzerland), one from Quaker UN Office, Geneva, and myself, representing the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES).

We met first Enrique Roman-Morey, the recently appointed Director of the Geneva branch of the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs (DDA). We expressed the hope of Geneva-based NGOs working on disarmament to have a closer relationship with, and contribution to, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) process.

Along with David Atwood, (Quaker UN Office, Geneva, and Chairman of the Geneva NGO Committee on Disarmament) our group made a joint call on Mr Roman-Morey at the DDA. Mr Roman-Morey was accompanied by Mr Bogomolov (DDA Political Affairs Officer) and Mrs Jennifer Mackby (newly appointed DDA Liaison Officer for NGOs). We expressed our appreciation for the cooperation that DDA give to NGOs, and our hope that we can make this more active. We expressed frustration at the way in which current CD procedures permit NGOs only to sit in public gallery during open sessions, and to make only one set speech at the CD each year (delivered by the Chairman!) This is a pity because deeper NGO involvement could lead to enriched discussion.

As a result of our meeting, the DDA and the NGO Disarmament Committee here are now looking at ways to improve the NGO contribution to the CD process. This should be facilitated by the recent appointment of a Special CD Coordinator on Improved Functioning of the CD.

Then we split up into smaller groups for the visit of the diplomatic missions of the US, France, UK and China to press for progress on nuclear disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament (CD). We reminded the missions of the great dangers posed by the continuing possession of nuclear weapons, and of the urgency of breaking the deadlock at the CD, lasting now for more than three years. We stated our strong opposition to the US National Missile Defense (NMD) program. The diplomats we saw (who included two Ambassadors to the CD) repeated familiar positions, but acknowledged the strength of concern by civil society over governments' record in nuclear disarmament.

NGO points

The main points we made, summarized by David Hay-Edie (13.08.2001, IPB Disarmament Coordinator), discussed and agreed upon jointly by the participants after the meetings, and complemented for this report with some of my observations (in italic), were:

Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous of all weapons of mass destruction, and declared illegal by the ICJ Advisory Opinion, but little is being done by the nuclear weapons states to eliminate them or halt their spread. Nuclear disarmament is essentially limited to some delivery systems of the warheads, already replaced by more modern transportation means.

The difficulties encountered in various spheres of disarmament reflect the dominant military mind-set in approaches to national security: real security is based on meeting human needs.

NMD is worsening this situation, complicating the search for a work program at the CD; yet most scientists agree that NMD is unlikely ever to provide an effective defense against, at best, more than a handful of missiles, and that only at tremendous cost in no reasonable relation to cheep countermeasures.

The nuclear weapons states have a heavy responsibility to find a way forward at the CD and to honor the commitments they made at the 2000 NPT Review Conference to nuclear disarmament and the 13 'practical steps' to that end.

The need is especially urgent to start negotiating treaties on Fissile Material Cut-Off (FMCT) and on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (PAROS); if the CD remains deadlocked, pressures will increase to take these outside the CD.

Embassies' positions

The missions, predictably, shifted much of the blame for the CD impasse on to others (US and China on to each other, France and UK to the US and China), or on international political tensions. They made the following additional points:

(US): US search for new, post Cold War, security arrangements leads it to call into question aspects of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, on which they hope to reach an agreement with Russia. US looking at further, perhaps unilateral, US nuclear weapons reductions in accordance with NPT Article VI. Treaty arrangements, e.g. START Treaties, are very cumbersome and slow moving, and the final version of START II not yet ratified by the US. US rejection of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) Verification Protocol reflects concern that verification regime would be ineffective. Chinese refusal to renounce possible use of force over Taiwan, a main source of US - Chinese tension. The generally low appraisal for treaties by our discussion partner, a senior adviser to the Ambassador, was depressing. There was no debate on technical/scientific aspects of NMD.

(China): Very worried at US refusal to ratify CTBT, and at possibility of US nuclear testing. US negative approach to CTBT contradicts US apparent commitment to an FMCT. Entry into force of the CTBT should precede FMCT, Treaty on No First Use, and reductions in nuclear weapons. US refusal to negotiate a Treaty on Outer Space cloaks its own military designs on space.

(UK): UK takes credit for successful bridge building between P5 nuclear weapons states and New Agenda Coalition countries at 2000 NPT Review Conference. UK paper on verification presented to that Conference shows UK willing to consider this as part of nuclear disarmament negotiations when they start. UK thinking seriously about pre-conditions for a nuclear-free world.

(France): France still has the strongest reservations about NMD amongst EU countries. However, if President Bush can make a deal with President Putin to amend the ABM Treaty this could ease tensions and perhaps enable the Chinese to agree to a deal to start talks at the CD. France firmly opposed to militarisation of space: NGOs are right to be concerned.

Conclusion

This was a useful first exercise in direct advocacy with the DDA and selected diplomatic missions. No new political aspects surfaced during the discussions, which took place in a fairly relaxed atmosphere. The diplomats of the Nuclear Weapon States at the CD are the representatives of the governments and they expressed the official view of their superiors at home. They have little or no freedom or leverage of their own. We can not expect any significant breakthrough during our visits, but, nevertheless, will follow this up with further lobbying. The next obvious occasion is in the margins of the Conference in Geneva on 15/16 November 2001, organized by the NGO Committee on Disarmament, on 'Nuclear Dangers, Doctrines and Deterrence'.

Gert G. Harigel is a senior physicist (emeritus) at CERN in Geneva and an active member of GIPRI (Geneva International Peace Research Institute) and of INES (International Network of Engineers & Scientists for Global Responsibility). He can be contacted as follows: CERN, EP-Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland, tel. +41 - 22 - 767 6252; Gert.Harigel@cern.ch.