This is a statement by prominant Australians in The Age today. Note the bipartisan collaboration of Liberal (Conservative) and Australian Labor (Centre-Left) Party identities in its framing...
The article verbatim:
"The authors are: Malcolm Fraser (prime minister, 1975-83), Sir Gustav Nossal (medical scientist, Australian of the Year 2000), Dr Barry Jones (former Labor government minister), General Peter Gration (former Defence Force chief), Lieutenant-General John Sanderson (former chief of the Army and former governor of Western Australia) and Associate Professor Tilman Ruff (chairman International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons).
YESTERDAY Kevin Rudd and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama launched Eliminating Nuclear Threats, the first report of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, co-chaired by former foreign ministers Gareth Evans and Yoriko Kawaguchi. This report is particularly important because it comes when, for the first time, an American president is committed to long-term nuclear disarmament. Japan and Australia can and should do much to support President Barack Obama. Business as usual is not an option because the current non-proliferation regime has broken down.
Failure to take effective action at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference next year will be highly damaging.
There is much to commend in the commission's report. The goal is a world free of nuclear weapons. It has proposed a "comprehensive" action agenda over time. It details the urgency of real action. The commission argues for a rules-based international order with consistent standards for all countries.
One of the great failures of the current non-proliferation regime is that the rules are applied inequitably and unevenly between countries. That must be changed. The commission underlines the need to establish steps that can be taken in future years and a report card to monitor and verify progress.
There are areas where we would like to see bolder recommendations by the commission. The US Nuclear Posture Review now under way, which sets US nuclear weapons policy, is a critical litmus test of Obama's important April 5 commitment in Prague: "To put an end to cold war thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same." Action by the United States, for example, declaration of a No First Use policy, would set the tone for the NPT Conference later next year.
On this point, the commission has not been strong. It set a date of 2025 for full acceptance of a No First Use policy.
Allies of nuclear-armed states bear particular responsibilities. Australia and Japan, joint sponsors of the commission, need to be more explicit on their own role. In recent months it has been confirmed that the foreign affairs establishment in Japan for decades had a secret agreement turning a blind eye to US nuclear weapons entering Japan, contrary to Japan's stated policy, and more recently has been opposing President Obama's nuclear disarmament agenda.
Australia's policies are equally confusing. This year's defence white paper, with its reliance on the extended deterrent to 2030 and beyond, runs counter to the Government's commitment to nuclear disarmament.
Clear policies from Australia and Japan would give substantial support to Obama. Unless they do so, their own commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world must be seriously in doubt.
''Extended deterrence'' does not need to be nuclear. A new Japanese Government, with Foreign Minister Okada supporting nuclear no first use, provides an excellent opportunity for a joint Australian-Japanese initiative actively supporting Obama's disarmament agenda and a US no-first-use commitment.
Furthermore, both countries should seek to transform their alliance relationship with the US to one that excludes the use of nuclear weapons. This would not weaken the defence of Australia or Japan but it would be the most powerful action our two governments could take towards a world free of nuclear weapons. It would be influential globally, including at NATO.
Clearly, nuclear weapons have to be phased out. But having a minimum target of 2000 nuclear weapons by 2025 seems to be too relaxed a target. We are concerned that the steps beyond 2025 are not defined. This represents an undesirable gap in the commission's recommendations. Remember, it was the failure of nuclear powers to move to nuclear disarmament, to which they were committed in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has done much to promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
All parties seem to agree that a nuclear weapons convention is necessary. We are glad the commission recommends work should begin now, supported by interested governments, on further refining and developing the concepts in the model convention now in circulation. There will be so many aspects to be covered. It should be negotiated step by step with the disarmament process itself.
We urge the Australian Government to work with Japan and jointly propose to the US that our defensive arrangements be recast so that they will no longer depend on the extended nuclear deterrent. This would be by far the most effective step that the two countries could take to achieve a nuclear-free world."
"The authors are: Malcolm Fraser (prime minister, 1975-83), Sir Gustav Nossal (medical scientist, Australian of the Year 2000), Dr Barry Jones (former Labor government minister), General Peter Gration (former Defence Force chief), Lieutenant-General John Sanderson (former chief of the Army and former governor of Western Australia) and Associate Professor Tilman Ruff (chairman International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons).
YESTERDAY Kevin Rudd and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama launched Eliminating Nuclear Threats, the first report of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, co-chaired by former foreign ministers Gareth Evans and Yoriko Kawaguchi. This report is particularly important because it comes when, for the first time, an American president is committed to long-term nuclear disarmament. Japan and Australia can and should do much to support President Barack Obama. Business as usual is not an option because the current non-proliferation regime has broken down.
Failure to take effective action at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference next year will be highly damaging.
There is much to commend in the commission's report. The goal is a world free of nuclear weapons. It has proposed a "comprehensive" action agenda over time. It details the urgency of real action. The commission argues for a rules-based international order with consistent standards for all countries.
One of the great failures of the current non-proliferation regime is that the rules are applied inequitably and unevenly between countries. That must be changed. The commission underlines the need to establish steps that can be taken in future years and a report card to monitor and verify progress.
There are areas where we would like to see bolder recommendations by the commission. The US Nuclear Posture Review now under way, which sets US nuclear weapons policy, is a critical litmus test of Obama's important April 5 commitment in Prague: "To put an end to cold war thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same." Action by the United States, for example, declaration of a No First Use policy, would set the tone for the NPT Conference later next year.
On this point, the commission has not been strong. It set a date of 2025 for full acceptance of a No First Use policy.
Allies of nuclear-armed states bear particular responsibilities. Australia and Japan, joint sponsors of the commission, need to be more explicit on their own role. In recent months it has been confirmed that the foreign affairs establishment in Japan for decades had a secret agreement turning a blind eye to US nuclear weapons entering Japan, contrary to Japan's stated policy, and more recently has been opposing President Obama's nuclear disarmament agenda.
Australia's policies are equally confusing. This year's defence white paper, with its reliance on the extended deterrent to 2030 and beyond, runs counter to the Government's commitment to nuclear disarmament.
Clear policies from Australia and Japan would give substantial support to Obama. Unless they do so, their own commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world must be seriously in doubt.
''Extended deterrence'' does not need to be nuclear. A new Japanese Government, with Foreign Minister Okada supporting nuclear no first use, provides an excellent opportunity for a joint Australian-Japanese initiative actively supporting Obama's disarmament agenda and a US no-first-use commitment.
Furthermore, both countries should seek to transform their alliance relationship with the US to one that excludes the use of nuclear weapons. This would not weaken the defence of Australia or Japan but it would be the most powerful action our two governments could take towards a world free of nuclear weapons. It would be influential globally, including at NATO.
Clearly, nuclear weapons have to be phased out. But having a minimum target of 2000 nuclear weapons by 2025 seems to be too relaxed a target. We are concerned that the steps beyond 2025 are not defined. This represents an undesirable gap in the commission's recommendations. Remember, it was the failure of nuclear powers to move to nuclear disarmament, to which they were committed in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has done much to promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
All parties seem to agree that a nuclear weapons convention is necessary. We are glad the commission recommends work should begin now, supported by interested governments, on further refining and developing the concepts in the model convention now in circulation. There will be so many aspects to be covered. It should be negotiated step by step with the disarmament process itself.
We urge the Australian Government to work with Japan and jointly propose to the US that our defensive arrangements be recast so that they will no longer depend on the extended nuclear deterrent. This would be by far the most effective step that the two countries could take to achieve a nuclear-free world."
I've tried commenting on this several times but they don't seem to want to go through. I think about all I said was that I hate the thought of having nuclear weapons around until 2025 and maybe even longer.
ReplyDeleteNow I'll give it one more try.
That's odd... Thanks for persevering!
ReplyDeleteI doubt there's the will to get rid of them completely within our lifetime, but we certainly should be working toward it anyway.