The NPT PrepCom 2023: IPB Side Events

From July 31 to August 3, 2023, the IPB had the pleasure of hosting three hybrid side events during the 2023 NPT Preparatory Committee at the United Nations in Vienna, Austria. These events aimed to foster the understanding of the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in the current political climate and the role of civil society in achieving nuclear disarmament. All three events received in person and online participation and were led by engaging Q&A discussions. 

July 31st, 2023: Nuke Free Europe: Nuclear Sharing and Threats

Nuke Free Europe: Nuclear Sharing and Other Threats  took place on July 31st with  speakers Alain Rouy (Mouvement de la Paix, France & IPB vice-President), Ludo de Brabander (Vrede, Belgium), Tom Unterrainer (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, UK), and Marion Küpker (Association of Reconciliation, Germany), moderated by Emily Molinari (IPB, Germany). 

The event was attended by 25 participants in person, as well as 10 who joined on Zoom. Ludo de Brabander opened the session with an introduction to NATO policy and nuclear arms, including perspectives from the Netherlands and Belgium. Alain Rouy followed with a discussion on the dangers of France’s strategic orientation towards military capability strengthening and the disregard demonstrated in President Macron’s announcements regarding nuclear disarmament. Marion Küpker then gave an overview of nuclear sharing in Germany and presented the current campaigns to remove US nuclear weapons from the country. Tom Unterrainer concluded by reflecting on the role of the UK and its relationship with the US, in particular he referred to the stationing of US nuclear weapons and nuclear waste at the Lakenheath airbase, and the risks that nuclear development poses on a national, international and regional level.

This event highlighted the panorama of nuclear sharing within Europe, its ramifications on a global scale, and the imperativeness of nuclear abolition.

On August 2nd, the event “The Role of Nuclear Weapons in a Shifting Geopolitical Landscape” had 10 in person participants and 11 online attendees. The event was moderated by Alessandra Fontanella (IPB, Germany) and commenced with opening remarks by Sérgio Duarte (Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs) on the current geopolitical changes, including the war in Ukraine, China-US competition and the rise of the BRICS.

Kate Hudson (General Secretary of CND, UK) followed with a discussion on the potential positive and negative consequences of these changes on nuclear weapons and the action civil society can take to abolish them. Vanessa Lanteigne (Program Officer for Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament) then explored the current projects and campaigns in nuclear arms control and the negative impact of the growing military & nuclear spending on climate change.  Stephanie Verlaan (Intern at the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs) brought the event to a close by focusing on youth’s pivotal contribution to nuclear disarmament, entwined with its wider implications within the evolving geopolitical landscape.

This event underscored the imperative of understanding the interplay between global shifts and nuclear weaponry by exploring the multifaceted repercussions of contemporary geopolitical changes, fostering a deeper comprehension of the crucial role civil society, ongoing initiatives, and the youth play in shaping the path towards nuclear disarmament within our evolving world order.

Our final event on August 3rdTechnology, Artificial Intelligence, and Nuclear Weapons” sought to draw attention to how newly developed and developing technologies can or already are being used in military strategy and warfare and the dangers they pose to nuclear security.

The event was attended by 15 participants, including representatives from the U.S Department of State and UNODA, and 19 online participants. It was moderated by Alain Rouy (Mouvement de la Paix, France & IPB vice-President). Dr. Michael Klare (Professor Emeritus at Five Colleges and Author) opened with a comprehensive overview on technology, AI and Nuclear weapons. He discussed how the weaponization of AI and other emerging technologies is increasing the risk of nuclear escalation and highlighted the danger of using automated command and control decision making systems with nuclear weapons. Our second speaker Jürgen Altmann (Physicist and Peace researcher at TU Dortmund University, Germany) explored military-technological Revolutions, military research and development, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and potential military applications.  Dr.  Altmann concluded by emphasizing the need for a reinvigoration of nuclear arms control. 

Given the novelty and significance of this discourse, it is crucial to consider the nexus between AI, technology, and nuclear weapons, especially in light of their pivotal relevance in today’s climate.

Visit IPB’s YouTube channel to watch all three side events!

IPB’s Vice President Alain Rouy with Emily Molinari and Alessandra Fontanella

Report on the second week at the UN negotiations to prohibit nuclear weapons

New York 26-30 June 2017

The second week of the negotiations for a Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons started with the publication on June 27th of the second draft of the Treaty (now called a “Treaty” and no more a “Convention”.) The 130 states in the room are now actively negotiating long hours in small or big committees in order to keep open the possibility to finalize a good text by June 7th. Continue reading “Report on the second week at the UN negotiations to prohibit nuclear weapons”

Sergio Duarte on the UN negotiations for a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons leading to their total elimination

At an IPB side event on “How to find common ground for the ban treaty and how can civil society and peace movements contribute” at the UN negotiations for a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, former UN High Level Representative for Disarmament, Sergio Duarte presented the following speech:

I am grateful to IPB for this opportunity to participate in this discussion on the current negotiation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I was asked to present a global view on the process and compare it with other disarmament processes. Given the constraints of time, let me make some quick comments on the results so far of the current negotiation process. There seems to be considerable convergence of views on many aspects of the future instrument.

I think it is fair to say that overall the conduct of business by President Elayne Whyte-Gómez has been quite satisfactory. The debate over the past week has been intense and constructive. The resulting second draft circulated yesterday seems to reflect accurately most of the proposals and observations made. I would make the following general remarks on the new draft:

  • The change of the order of the first few paragraphs of the Preamble gave prominence to the “elimination” of nuclear weapons and to the risks and consequences resulting from their existence and use. In mentioning the ethical imperative of nuclear disarmament, it quotes former UNSG Ban Ki-Moon about the “global public good” and adequately related it to “national and collective security interests”. All States are entitled to security, not just those that possess or are protected by nuclear weapons.
  • Stress was given to the suffering and harm resulting from the use and to the impact of tests (nuclear activities) on indigenous peoples;
  • The need to comply with the principles and rules of IHL is reaffirmed;
  • Mentions the principles of Charter of the UN regarding relations among States and recalls Resolution no. 1 of 1946;
  • Expresses concern about the slow pace of nuclear disarmament and the importance of a legally binding prohibition, as well as the need to achieve GCD;
  • Reaffirms the ICJ 1996 decision on the obligation to pursue negotiations;
  • Reaffirms the vital role of implementation of the NTP, recognizes the vital importance of the CTBT and the contribution of NWFZs;
  • Emphasizes the inalienable right of Parties to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes;
  • Recognizes the need to strengthen participation of women in nuclear disarmament;
  • Finally stresses the role of public conscience and the efforts of the Red Cross, international organizations, NGOs in furthering the principles of humanity evidenced in the call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

There were constructive changes, but some of the operative paragraphs need further discussion.

  • Core prohibitions are very clear and unchanged from the previous daft;
  • The procedure for declarations by Parties are now clearer. The same can be said of the measures to eliminate nuclear weapons. Need to clarify some points, for example what “programmes” mean in this context);
  • There is more flexibility in the provisions regarding verification. (Perhaps greater clarity about the “competent international authority” is required);
  • Order of the articles on implementation and victim assistance reversed, without change;
  • No change in provisions on cooperation;
  • Article on meetings of States parties now list the matters that can be considered;
  • Several changes on articles on amendments; participation of civil society and their proposals are now included;
  • The article on relations with other agreements is better formulated now.

This brings me to the comparison with other disarmament processes. It must be stressed that no previous international agreement on nuclear weapons ever established a clear, legally binding obligation to disarm. Since the start of the nuclear age, all agreements have aimed at preventing proliferation. Progress was made in that direction, particularly with the NPT, the CTBT and the NWFZs.  Nuclear weapon States have been trying to interpret such agreements as legitimizing their exclusive possession of nuclear weapons. 71 years after the adoption of Resolution No. 1, the current negotiation, however, is the first serious attempt to establish a legally binding, irreversible and verified obligation to take effective measures to eliminate nuclear weapons. The NPT and customary international law require all nations – not just those that possess nuclear weapons – to negotiate for nuclear disarmament. The ban treaty will provide a solid foundation for future multilateral action.

I am sure that in the coming week there will be important comments and proposals and that different States and opinion groups will try to have their views reflected in the final product. In my view this final product must respond to the criteria needed for its effectiveness: it must be clear, simple, and provide for wide inclusiveness.

Regardless of the opposition and diffidence of the nuclear-armed nations, and although, as I said, further discussion is needed on some points, I have no doubt that we will adopt a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons by consensus on July 7.  We are perfectly aware that this Treaty will not immediately halt nuclear weapons development or diminish the threat that current nuclear weapon arsenals pose to all humanity but it is an important step in the right direction. It inscribes into positive international law a repudiation of nuclear weapons and establishes a clear path toward their elimination.

Once adopted, the impact and effectiveness of this Treaty will depend essentially from its wide acceptance by States and the continuing and active support of civil society, particularly in those States that possess nuclear weapons and their allies. This will take time and considerable effort. In any case, the Treaty is a powerful statement of the will of the majority international community and public opinion worldwide to outlaw the most cruel and indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction ever devised. We are all committed to its success and its universalization.

Download the speech here: IPB – Side event 28-06-2017_Sergio Duarte