Australia defends opposition to global push for nuclear weapons ban
Foreign affairs department ‘sees no value’ in a pledge, endorsed by 116 countries to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide
Ben Doherty
Thursday 17 September 2015 16.19 EDT
Australia has defended its position on nuclear disarmament, saying a push for a global treaty banning nuclear weapons “will not lead to their elimination”.
Guardian Australia reported on Wednesday on a cache of diplomatic cables released under a freedom of information request, showing Australia resisting a growing momentum behind an Austrian-led “humanitarian pledge” to “stigmatise, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.
The pledge, now endorsed by 116 countries, is seen as a precursor to a new global treaty outlawing all nuclear weapons.
But a spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Dfat) told Guardian Australia it “sees no value” in the Austrian pledge because it ignores the realpolitik of the global nuclear landscape.
None of the five “declared” nuclear nations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty – the US, Britain, France, China and Russia – have endorsed the Austrian pledge.
Nor have any of the countries which have nuclear weapons outside the NPT: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
“The Austrian pledge ignores the reality that to eliminate nuclear weapons the international community must address the security as well as the humanitarian dimensions of nuclear weapons,” the Dfat spokeswoman said.
Disarmament efforts must involve the world’s nuclear weapons states, she said.
“Only through taking … practical steps to enable nuclear-armed states to disarm, can we eliminate nuclear weapons”.
Australia is also reticent to support a global ban on nuclear weapons because it is reliant on the nuclear weapons of the US for “extended nuclear deterrence”.
“Our alliance with the United States is the bedrock of our national security arrangements, and this includes a reliance on extended nuclear deterrence provided by US forces,” Dfat said. “As long as the threat of nuclear attack exists, no matter how small the likelihood, Australia will continue to rely on this assurance.”
The current global mechanism for nuclear disarmament is the 1968 non-proliferation treaty. But the disarmament “pillar” of the treaty is widely regarded as having failed.
While the superpowers are slowly reducing their stockpiles, they are, at the same time, working to develop new weapons systems or upgrade existing ones. And non-NPT India, Pakistan, and North Korea have increased their nuclear stockpiles in recent years.
Australia says it is committed to disarmament under the NPT, and other measures such as the comprehensive test ban treaty, and negotiations over a fissile material cut-off treaty.
“But clearly the strongest assurance against nuclear attack is the total elimination of nuclear weapons,” Dfat told Guardian Australia, “and for this reason the Australian government works hard to further international efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament.”
In cables back to Canberra, Australian diplomats have highlighted the weaknesses in the non-proliferation treaty process. In a briefing prepared for the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, officials concede “prospects are bleak for meaningful progress in multilateral arms control”.
The FOI request that revealed the government correspondence was made by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a coalition of NGOs from more than 95 countries, whose aim is a global ban on nuclear weapons.
Its Asia-Pacific director, Tim Wright, told Guardian Australia the humanitarian pledge had developed an international momentum, and he was confident it would lead to new global negotiations towards outlawing nuclear weapons.
The Australian government’s argument that it required the protection of a foreign power’s nuclear weapons was “a long-held belief that has gone unchallenged”.
“Nuclear weapons undermine safety, they do not enhance it,” Wright said.
A global ban treaty on nuclear weapons would help create a new international norm that the weapons should not be used in any situation.
Professor Ramesh Thakur, director of the centre for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament at the Australian National University, said Australian diplomats had underestimated support for the humanitarian pledge.
“What is really clear from these cables, but not explicitly stated, is that Australian officials have been very surprised, they have been taken aback, by the strength of support for the humanitarian consequences pledge, and they are scrambling to explain that.
“Support for the humanitarian consequences pledge is making Australia’s position more difficult; it is galvanising public and political opinion, and Australia finds itself running against the domestic and international tide.”
No comments:
Post a Comment