Will to Zero

[willtozero-blog]

Remarks by Shyam Saran at the Global Zero Summit - Paris, February 3, 2010

India and the Pursuit of Global Zero – A World without Nuclear Weapons Remarks by Shyam Saran at the Global Zero Summit Paris, February 3, 2010

We welcome this historic summit on ‘Global Zero’ and the resounding reaffirmation it represents of the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. When first proposed, ‘Global Zero’ was indicative of the high hopes and aspirations the world-over for nuclear disarmament. This Summit comes at an opportune moment, when there are fresh doubts emerging whether this is indeed a credible goal. Even the four distinguished statesmen who, in 2007, played such a significant role in putting nuclear disarmament back on the international agenda, seem to be now lowering expectations in their most recent op-ed.* It’s not that something new is being said by them. It seems to me, however, that the emphasis has unmistakably changed, back to the importance of maintaining a robust nuclear posture. We hope that this Summit will enable us to keep our eyes on the ball and not be deflected from the goal that we all seek. Otherwise, there is likely to be confusion about our commitment to nuclear disarmament and a perception that this is more about further restricting and limiting the access of non-nuclear weapon states, in particular developing states, to civilian uses of nuclear energy, under the guise of strengthening non-proliferation.

Let me acquaint you with India’s thinking on Global Zero, taking into account our own national and then the region1al perspective, though it may be noted that it is difficult to confine the security interests of a country like India to arbitrarily defined regional settings. First, while India is a nuclear weapon state, it is the only such state to declare unequivocally that, in its perception, its security will be enhanced and not diminished in a world free of nuclear weapons. This is important because it lends credibility to our consistent advocacy of nuclear disarmament and our willingness to engage, without delay, in multilateral negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and the use of nuclear weapons and on their time-bound destruction, leading to the global, nondiscriminatory and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons.

Second, pending the realization of the above objective, India has taken steps to underscore its commitment to nuclear disarmament and contribute to confidence-building. India has publicly adhered to a policy of non-first use of nuclear weapons and to the non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon States. Despite our well-known reservations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, India is committed to its voluntary unilateral moratorium on nuclear explosive testing. We are prepared to negotiate a verifiable FMCT in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. We are not a Party to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and cannot respond to calls for universal adherence to that Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon State. Nevertheless, India has impeccable and universally acknowledged credentials on nonproliferation. It is in recognition of India’s unmatched non-proliferation record over the past more than half a century that it was possible to persuade the United States and the 45 member States of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to re-engage with India in international civil nuclear commerce under an India-specific Safeguards agreement with the IAEA. India will continue to conduct itself as a responsible and prudent member of the international community and make its own contribution to promoting non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

Let me now turn to the regional perspective. It should come as no surprise to this distinguished gathering that India’s perceptions are influenced by the current state and the history of developments in our neighborhood and the larger theatre of Asia-Pacific as they pertain to nuclear issues.

One, India’s security has been adversely impacted by the clandestine proliferation of nuclear weapons in its neighbourhood, often ignored and on occasion, encouraged by certain important countries. The activities of the so-called A.Q.Khan network is an ominous reminder of the threats India continues to face in this respect.

Two, India is deeply worried about the potential nexus between clandestine proliferation and terrorism and the ever-present danger of such weapons or vulnerable nuclear materials falling into the hands of Jehadi and non-State actors. While this is a specific threat to India, it also threatens the security of all States. India has welcomed the US initiative to host the Nuclear Security Summit in April this year. However, over the long term, it is also our view that it is only through the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and by putting in place universally applicable, non-discriminatory and fully transparent verification procedures, that we can fully prevent and deny nuclear materials from falling into dangerous hands.

Three, it is apparent that the centre of gravity of political and economic power is now shifting towards the Asia-Pacific region. With this shift, it is only to be expected that military capabilities and security assets, gain a higher profile in our region. While India welcomes the lead taken by the US and Russia in reducing their nuclear arsenals, we must remain mindful of security trends, including relating to the improvement, accretion and deployment of strategic armaments, in the Asia-Pacific region. This should be of concern to the international community as well, as we move with practical steps towards Global Zero.

India has welcomed President Obama’s speech in Prague rededicating the US to the goal of nuclear disarmament. We look forward to the implementation of the bold steps that President Obama outlined, including his commitment that the US would reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy. We await steps the US & Russia intend to take in significantly reducing their nuclear arsenals. We also await the necessary steps that the other nuclear-weapon States, who are Party to the NPT and committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament, intend to take in this regard. India will be prepared to join in efforts to realize the goal of Global Zero in a manner consistent with its security interests as part of global, non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. But, as I said earlier, India remains convinced that its security will be enhanced, not diminished in a world free of nuclear weapons, a vision that was so eloquently articulated by the late PM Rajiv Gandhi in his historic address to the UNGA in 1988.

In the context of Global Zero, the question of time-frame has been referred to and an appeal has been made to realism to argue for a gradual and phased approach. It has been stated that nuclear disarmament is a place on a high mountain which is not yet visible, and the journey to that place is going to be long and arduous.

I believe that this reality must be set against two other competing realities which compel a more urgent time frame. Firstly, we all recognize that as long as there are states which continue to possess nuclear weapons, there will be other states who will aspire to possess them as well. The Global Zero Action Plan has talked about the world being near a “proliferation tipping point” – beyond the capacity to rein it in. So how do we deal with this reality?

Secondly, there is the link between terrorism and proliferation – so starkly brought out in the excellent movie which we saw yesterday. This is an escalating danger and will not be put on hold, while we take our time to achieve Global Zero. In any case, nuclear weapons cannot credibly deter non-state actors or jehadi groups from using or threatening the use of clandestinely acquired nuclear weapons, even if it is a crude one.

Therefore, I think it would be useful if this movement highlighted these realities as well, in order to reinforce the argument for urgency. I commend the hosts of this Meeting for bringing together this galaxy of leaders to focus international efforts for Global Zero. I am confident that the deliberations here will add to the international debate, mobilize and sustain political will and help in moving the international community towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

* Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, San Nunn and William Perry in "How to Protect our Nuclear Deterrent" – Wall Street Journal, 20 January, 2010.

[willtozero-blog]

Remarks at the “Global Zero” Conference by Pierre Sellal, Secretary General of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Paris, February 2nd, 2010)

Majesty,

Ministers,

Members of Parliaments,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you Ambassador Burt for your kind introduction. I am honoured to have the opportunity to say a few words before such an impressive gathering.

Ladies and gentlemen,

One lesson which can be drawn from History is that policy-makers don’t take decisions in the realm of war and peace, armament and disarmament, because of a plan agreed in a diplomatic conference. They do it because it is in their country’s national security interest, and because the strategic, regional and internal context allows for it.

The elimination of nuclear weapons will not be decided to fulfil visions, however generous, ambitious and necessary they are; it will happen when political and security conditions enable it to happen.

This reality was recently reaffirmed by the Security Council in resolution 1887: our common goal is to work towards a safer world, and to create the conditions which will make nuclear weapons less, and ultimately un-necessary.

This does not mean that we should condone inaction. On the contrary. France has taken unprecedented unilateral measures regarding nuclear disarmament, and we believe that likewise concrete progress by all States will enhance international security and ours.

So, what shall we do in the upcoming years, not in a distant future, to create collectively the conditions which will allow for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, in accordance with Article VI of the NPT ? And how do we make sure that this world will guarantee peace and stability, without leading to an arms race in bio-, chemical or conventional weapons?

First, we should put a resolute stop to proliferation. Let’s be clear : if we fail to solve the Iranian nuclear issue, we risk nuclear cascade in the region and nuclear anarchy in the world, which would put an end to the dream of a world without nuclear weapons, as well as to our shared objective of a Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The Iranian crisis also highlights the need for strengthened IAEA verification and the reaffirmation of the role of the UNSC. All this is at stake in the Iranian issue, and this is why the international community needs to find an early negotiated solution to it.

Second, we should in parallel promote real nuclear disarmament, based on deeds rather than words.

In December 2008, my predecessor came here ; he stated “ We need a vision and we need action”. One year later, what does the situation on the disarmament scene look like?

In Prague last year President Obama stated very strongly his ambition for a world without nuclear weapons, as well as his commitment to pursue aggressively ratification of the CTBT, the conclusion of a new Post-START agreement with Russia, and the commencement of negotiation on a new disarmament treaty, which would ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

This major speech, as well as the historical UNSC summit on Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament which followed on September 24th, have led to considerable optimism in the disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation community, including in France.

This was the vision. But on the action side- the situation is less rosy.

Of course, we see very encouraging prospects for a new START agreement between US and Russia. But, apart from difficulties on verification provisions, we also see that the new agreement will let aside stockpiles and non-strategic warheads and will probably set an objective, around 1500 strategic operationally deployed warheads, quite far from the 1,000 total warheads each by 2018, that you proposed in your “Global Zero” plan.

The prospect for a swift US ratification of the CTBT is moving away. And there is no concrete sign of a prompt Chinese ratification - or either by the other remaining States.

After the consensus decision of the Conference on disarmament in May last year to resume its work and to launch negotiations on a Fissile material cut-off treaty, thus ending a more than 11 years stalemate, we see unfortunately Pakistan preventing the commencement of negotiations on this essential Treaty.

Last year also, DPRK announced a second nuclear test, the second one in the history of the NPT. And Iran continues to violate its obligations, to challenge the international community and its authority, creating more and more anxiety in the region.

This bleak picture should not lead us to pessimism. Rather it is for France a cause to show even more determination.

If we want serious progress on nuclear disarmament, we have to address it seriously and concretely. President Sarkozy has made ambitious proposals in March 2008, endorsed later on by the EU in December 2008 : The first logical premise to advance disarmament is to stop arming and to prevent a build up. This means stopping the production of fissile material for weapons and declaring an immediate moratorium on the production of these materials as well as on nuclear tests. All nuclear powers should swiftly join the 4 Nuclear Weapons States, among them France, which have already declared such production moratorium.

Preventing a build up also means dismantling facilities dedicated to the production of fissile material for weapons and nuclear testing sites, and to do it with maximum transparency, as France did. This is an essential step to create confidence and to ensure a sustainable disarmament process. One cannot seriously disarm while retaining these facilities and thus keeping all options open.

We also need to get States which have not yet done so to ratify promptly the CTBT, and by negotiating as quickly as possible an FMCT. Second, we need to reduce arsenals - all nuclear arsenals. The priority is clearly the pursuit of the reduction of the two largest arsenals, Russia and the US being commonly deemed to still retain 95% of all nuclear weapons on earth. We therefore welcome Presidents Medvedev and Obama’s commitment to conclude very soon a new agreement.

But the other nuclear powers should also reduce their arsenals. We hear proposals for them to take no-increase commitments. But what would be the value of such a commitment, should the strategic context change? Not much. Declaratory policies, such as “no first use” will also remain unverifiable and reversible. Only the cut off treaty can guarantee the non increase of nuclear arsenals. We also need more transparency and confidence-building efforts from all Nuclear States. The first logical step should be to declare how many weapons they have in total, as France has done.

If we are serious about nuclear disarmament, all these concrete steps should be implemented by all nations.

On this, France is leading by example.

Of course, we hear some people grumbling about our supposed reluctance to commit to nuclear disarmament, or about our attachment to our nuclear deterrence. As a matter of fact, the French nuclear deterrence has been protecting our country very well for 50 years.

The American nuclear deterrence has also protected well the US and its non-nuclear Allies in Europe and Asia, and will continue to do so. In Prague, President Obama recalled that, while working towards nuclear disarmament, the United States would maintain, as long as nuclear weapons exist, a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to its allies.

We share this conviction. France is fully committed to fulfilling all the objectives of the NPT. The best proof of our commitment to nuclear disarmament is our concrete record.

In 2000, the NPT RevCon produced a set of measures to be taken, as known as the “13 steps”: France has already implemented 10 out of 13, indeed all of those which are applicable to her. We have even gone further.

We have reduced by half our nuclear arsenal in ten years. The latest ambitious reduction was decided by President Sarkozy in March 2008, and immediately implemented. We would like all other nuclear powers to take the same path that France, as well as the UK, have forgone for over a decade, leading to a posture of strict sufficiency - what the four U.S. statesmen have called the “base camp” and what the Evans-Kawaguchi Commission describes as the “minimization point”.

We have adopted in our doctrine a stringent limitation of the circumstances in which nuclear weapons could be used, consistent with the requirements of the ICJ and the UN Charter.

We ratified the CTBT 12 years ago, together with the UK.

We have stopped producing fissile material for nuclear weapons since the mid 1990’s and we have declared a moratorium.

We have consented major transparency gestures. In his speech at Cherbourg on March 2008, President Sarkozy announced the total of our nuclear arsenal: less than 300 warheads. No other nuclear State has announced its total arsenal. President Sarkozy also decided to allow visits by international experts in 2008 and 2009 to our former facilities dedicated to the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

These are the facts.

But, disarmament is a shared responsibility for all States, nuclear Weapon States as well as Non nuclear. To create the right conditions for a world without nuclear weapons means fostering progress by all countries in all different areas of disarmament, reducing conventional imbalances, working to solve international tensions, and improving collective security.

Because if we don’t complement nuclear disarmament with credible disarmament in all other fields (whether biological, chemical or conventional, missile defense and space), it might lead again to a destabilizing scenario of arms race. So we should in parallel enforce existing disarmament norms, for instance by establishing a verification regime for the Bio convention, working for the universal ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Ottawa convention banning landmines. We should also strive to establish new instruments : For instance, France and its European partners have proposed to launch negotiations on a treaty banning short- and intermediate-range ground-to-ground missiles.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We must pursue a path that is grounded in action, in the strategic reality and in the responsibilities of all nations. Because we will be judged by our citizens on our deeds to concretely improve our collective security. It is our common task, one France is fully committed to, and yours too, to make collective security a reality.

Thank you for your attention. I wish you very fruitful debates and a beautiful stay in Paris.

[willtozero-blog]

President Barack Obama's Message to the Global Zero Conference

The following is President Barack Obama's message sent to the Global Zero conference in Paris, France (February 2-4, 2010). To participants of the Global Zero Summit, Although I’m unable to join you in person, I’m proud that my administration is represented at the Global Zero Summit by our Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Ellen Tauscher. And I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for your tireless efforts to advance the vision we share – a world without nuclear weapons.

As President, this is one of my highest priorities. At Prague, I committed the United States to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and to seeking a world without them. At the United Nations Security Council, we won passage of a historic resolution enshrining this as a shared commitment among nations. And I am proud that the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on a new START Treaty to dramatically reduce our nuclear arsenals. But this is just a start. At our Nuclear Security Summit in April we will rally nations behind the goal of securing the world’s vulnerable nuclear materials in four years. We will strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and work with allies and partners to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of every nation are enforced. We will seek to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. And our Nuclear Posture Review will reduce role and number of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. Make no mistake, this will be hard. Progress will be neither quick nor easy. Rather than fixed deadlines, we will work toward reductions that are historic yet realistic, ambitious yet achievable. And as I’ve said, our ultimate goal may not be realized in our lifetimes. Yet always remember this—when people of passion and goodwill refuse to accept the world as it is, when we see the world as it might yet become, then great change is inevitable. As Global Zero works to build grassroots and public support, you will always have a partner in me and my administration. Together, we can make progress that leaves ours and future generations safer and more secure. Together, we can pursue the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.