tv Nuclear Weapons Non- Proliferation Treaty CSPAN June 15, 2017 1:01am-2:33am EDT
created a library on the grounds here at hyde park new york. basically what he decided to do is raise private money to build the library and then he gave it to the government to be operated by the national archives. >> watch the cities to her saturday at noon eastern on c-span2 book tv. and sunday on american history tv on c-span three. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. the arms control association held its annual meeting to discuss issues of nuclear security and arms control policy. this portion looks at the nuclear weapons nonproliferation treaty and its next review conference scheduled for 2020. this is 90 minutes.
>> [inaudible conversations] good morning ladies and gentlemen. good morning and welcome to the 2017 arms control association annual meeting. i ai'm the executive director of the arms control association, and as most of you know we are an independent nonpartisan membership organization established in 1971 and dedicated to reducing and eliminating the threat posed by the world's most dangerous weapons which would of course be nuclear chemical biological weapons as well as certain conventional weapons that pose particular harm and risks to civilians. you can find out more about the association, its history, its ongoing work coming in to get more information and analysis about these issues to the website arms-control.org and you can follow us at arms control now.
the latest issue of the journal arms control today just went online so you can check that out there and also the resources on the arms-control lap which is simply arms-control on all of the stores. we are grateful to see so many of you here. members, friends, colleagues from the diplomatic community, journalists, and we welcome those of you that are with us watching on c-span. and for those of you following on social media, but better handle for today's event to be part of the conversation is arms-control 17. so, the theme of this year's meeting is arms control and nonproliferation restraint at risk and they are. we are facing in serious ways unprecedented challenges this year in the task to reduce the nuclear danger. the bedrock of all nonproliferation efforts face serious implementation
challenges. we have key commitments and obligations that are unfulfilled and that's led many of the states to begin negotiations on a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons and we will talk more about that later today. with the deterioration of the u.s. russian relations the treaties including the new strategic arms reduction treaty are at risk and worse still all of the worlds major nuclear armed states are either arms states are either replacing, upgrading or in some cases expanding their nuclear arsenals. and last but not least unless we can work with our allies to engage north korea in the talks to reverse the nuclear missile pursued in its capabilities will become more dangerous in the years ahead. so how the united states will respond to these challenges and whether the united states
continues to provide leadership is not entirely clear and that is part of what we will be talking about today. president trump has made statements that concern the allies and he's made statements about expanding the u.s. nuclear capabilities. he's been highly critical of some agreements like the new treaty and the iran nuclear deal. so, it's been a great lineup of speakers and experts and panelists to address these issues. we are especially happy to have later today tha the senior white house adviser, christopher ford during the lunch hour and the representative who is going to be closing of the conference with perspectives from the international immunity and the united nations. but before we move to the first part of the program, i just want to give a brief bit of thanks and a shout out to some of the individual members and contributors that made today's event possible.
some of their names are on the table here at the carnegie endowment for national peace and that's important because we are a small organization and we try to have a big impact but it means your donations make a huge difference and in response to these challenges, we are gratified that our members have responded over the last few months. we have seen an uptick in contributions at this important time. so we are very happy to have several organizations and individuals help with contributions for this conference including our colleague the peace foundation which is committed to a world free of nuclear weapons and our partners at the agents of change in support of disarmament and peace and our individual sponsors for today's event and the members of the arms control
association that wish to remain anonymous. thanks to you all and everyone here. we can't do it without you. and we also cannot make progress on these issues without leaders and arms control and that is why ten years ago we launched the arms-control person of the year award. we felt that it was important to recognize the work of key individuals who in various ways in different parts of the world have catalyzed awareness and action to deal with these weapons related challenges each year the staff and the board of directors nominate several individuals about ten to a dozen that we think have provided notable leadership in the previous year. and then we put it all to an online vote and the top because the arms-control person of the year. so it is an imperfect process perhaps, but so far the elections have been free of any cyber hacking and we think it is
a free and fair process that is about as undemocratic as it may be. the republic of the marshall islands and the former minister of the marshall islands according to the highest number of votes for 2016 are the arms-control persons of the year over 1,850 people from 63 countries participated in the voting this year back in december, and that is a record for this contest. the winners were nominated and are being recognized for the legal case against the nuclear armed states for failing to meet their obligations to initiate nuclear disarmament and it's also important to remember the republican marshall islands and the people there were subjected to 67 u.s. atmospheric nuclear test explosions from 1946 to 1958. tony, who accepted the invitation to come here to fly
all the way from his home in the south pacific is unable to be with us due to health difficulties and the republic of the marshall islands ambassador is out of washington on official business. so we've asked the executive director of the lawyers committee on th nuclear policy a member of the legal team that brought the suit to say a few words about tony and the significance of the case in the larger scheme of things, so john, thanks for being with us to explain the importance. [applause] in bringing the nuclear disarmament cases before the international court of justice, the marshall islands and it's been foreign minister showed courage and determination rooted in tragic experience. they also showed good faith in
seeking the solutions. tony and the marshall islands have shown similar courage and determination in confronting climate change. tony played a catalytic role of the negotiations that yielded the paris climate agreement in december of 2015. he helped bring together a large coalition of nations that strengthened the agreement and perhaps even made it possible. so in light of the developments yesterday, i think that i should quote a couple of things that the coalition has said. the president's intention to withdraw from the agreement while today's decision will have grave impacts, we must not give up hope.
the high -- and coalition convened by the marshall islands also released a statement for people around the world most vulnerable to climate change, the paris agreement represents the best hope for survival. the arms-control persons of the year award of course was about arms control. we were of course very disappointed that last fall by the narrow margins the international court of justice decided not to adjudicate the nuclear disarmament cases on the merits. however, simply bringing the cases raised the worlds attention that failure of the powers to fill the obligation to negotiate and reach the global elimination of nuclear weapons, that is what the court said in
its 1996 advisory opinion. for those of you who like to dig into things, they are also a rich resource for the development of the political and legal arguments for disarmament. in the memorial in the uk case, the team argued the merits and that is how the case unfolded. so as mentioned from 1946 and 1958 the u.s. conducted 67 tests in the marshall islands and included the first hydrogen bomb test and infamous test of 195415 megatons, 1,000 times the size of the nagasaki bombs.
tony was a 9-year-old boy fishing in the canoe with his grandfather when he witnessed the test 200 miles away. the sky turned blood red and he told the international court of justice in march of 2016. however, the marshall islands cases before the international court of justice were not about compensation for the effects of testing. when the cases were filed in april of 2014, tony said our people have suffered catastrophic and irreversible damage of these weapons and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experienced these atrocities. tony also said in accepting the 2015 right livelihood award i have seen with my own eyes the nuclear devastation and i know
with conviction that nuclear weapons must never again be visited upon humanity. this is not just an issue of treaty commitments or international law, though it is that and not just an issue of ethics or morality though is that, too. this is an issue of common sense. how could any common person walking down the street ever commit to possession or use of such weapons? so i think the marshall islands and tony richly deserved this award and i think the arms control association very much for arranging it. [applause] >> i want to ask you to help us get this to the marshall islan
islands. thanks a lot. ischemic and thank you, john, for helping to explain and remind us about the humanitarian impacts of the work that we are discussing today and the interconnectedness of these issues for all of the inhabitants. now, it is time to turn to the first panel of the day, which is the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in the west end and talks to this report. i would like to ask the three panelists to come up to the podium. we will make a quick transition. as they come up to the stage with go to suzanne was selected to join the board of directors and suzanne among other accomplishments was the head of the u.s. delegation to the
successful 2010 nuclear nonproliferation treaty review conference. with that, the floor is yours and we will begin. the first panel today is going to tackle the challenges facing the nuclear nonproliferation treaty as it approaches the anniversary of the entry into the 2020 review conference. leading towards the totally on a show. challenges are not new and the pursuit to strengthen its implementation is ongoing. the negotiations on the band are the results of international frustration over the pace of the progress on the nuclear
disarmament pursuant to articles. this frustration has fueled deepening concerns about the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use among many nations in civil societies. supporters of the ban treaty believe it will fill a gap in to give a boost to the disarmament in the way that complements but not competes. another group is insisting that there progressive approach to the nuclear disarmament has been and remains a way to reduce existing arsenal. this morning, we will hear from the diplomats and experts on the subject. there was a brief biography of each in the program. tom countrymen served as the
acting under secretary for international security and simultaneously as the assistant secretary for international security and nonproliferation where i have the honor of working for him. the permanent representative to the united nations of new york was the director general of political affairs in the austrian ministry of foreign affairs and served in a number of other government positions. we will surface of the ambassador with the possible shape of the new prohibition or ban treaty and then mr. countrymen on the convention to address the intersection of the ban.
>> thank you very much. as the microphone that? it is an honor to be here with you and especially to be with the arms control association for the annual meeting. among the many public issues the american people have to be ready to discuss and raise their own consciousness arms-control threats of nuclear biological and chemical weapons have to be near the top so it's important for all of us in this room to go beyond and. as i started jotting down ideas a couple weeks ago i read an article about the draft convention to prohibit nuclear
weapons and if you have 15 minutes it is better spent but we are already seated so we will go ahead. just a few words first about the nonproliferation treaty that is the cornerstone of the global nonproliferation regime. there is disappointment that the goals of the treaty haven't been achieved and that frustration merits of th the analysis and discourse and pressure on the state to move faster and realized the commitments that they have made.
what is not sensible is a treaty itself and what makes no sense is to say that the nuclear nonproliferation treaty is the problem aiming at the wrong target. and i think that the current review process is at risk of being confused with the treaty itself. there is no question the five-year review cycle is a matter of great frustration to diplomats whose professional specialization is nuclear disarmament and it's not difficult to get 187 countries to com180 somecountries to comee consensus on a final document. that frustrates those who see
there ought to be better reports on the commitments made by both nuclear and non- nuclear weapons states on the progress they've made but a couple of points about the process, and unhealthy processed and overly ambitious and overly contentious review process and it's one thing but it doesn't mean it is failing. it continues to be in my view the single history to every nation of the world by greatly restricting the nuclear arms race and even those countries
that are frustrated continued to benefit. no other treaty has done as much for the non- nuclear weapons states. so this leads to one plaintiff connection between the convention that is currently under discussion in new york and that is the single strongest recommendation for those drafting is to make it explicit that the membership and adherence to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty is a precondition for the adherence to the convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.
there is no inconsistency between the goal and what is likely to be the final language of the convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. i have heard the concerns by some that there may be countries for political reasons that are tempted to embrace the convention and withdraw it doesn't sound very logical and get i've done enough to know that logic doesn't always win over politics and it's possible to envision a situation like iran or egypt could make that choice. why create an issue or
circumstance that have an argument about inconsistency between the most important treaty we have now and this new convention, just avoid the argument with a certain requirement for the membership in the cpn w. and don't hide behind frustration that we are not happy with how it has been implemented. another small point expressed by other reader leaders of this efs been heard in washington whether it is being heard today i am less qualified to judge. let me talk a little bit about the process so far first i want to express respect for what's
been done on the convention. i think it is in the direction of the ambassador said is the task of ten nonnuclear weapon states do to help fulfill the requirement accepted by the u.s. and other nuclear powers to work towards nuclear disarmament it is a contribution in that regard. what is crucial and i will talk about more is what can be done in the next negotiating session in the text and the statements outside of the negotiation that move us closer to the long-term
undertaking of achieving its purpose. so here as you draft if it is going to take the form of a treaty it is going to have some incoherence because it represents compromises among different states or groups of states i hope they seek to avoid that incoherence by focusing on what is the ultimate goal and the ultimate goal is to persuade nuclear weapons states so they can go to complete nuclear disarmament without damaging their own security.
much of the argument on the convention is not about securi security. it's about political pressure that matters and of establishing the norms. all of those are important but none of those are going to win the argument. the argument will be about security. just three points of advice, first, during the negotiation and afterwards, stay on the high road. that doesn't mean giving lectures to the nuclear weapons states, it doesn't mean taking g
that he disdained latitude or accusing them and i am conscious of the need to avoid giving lectures even at the time we have a president who likes to lecture our closest allies. take seriously the dilemma is that the nuclear weapons states and those states that are referred to as the umbrella states take serious their security issues. pick the target you want to persuade. and by that i mean above all, don't delay and avoid choosing the hard targets.
again as pointed out in the article it is natural in the movement that depends largely upon a civil society in democratic countries to start by seeking to persuade democracies and leave aside the nuclear weapons states, russia, china and above all north korea that are impervious to any kind of an outside rational argument. but to focus only on democratic states that are a part of the western alliance are those that are under extensive deterrence that are perceived as a discriminatory movement and risks having that used against the movement it would be easy for people not only in mississippi but i'll swear to say it seeks to damage western
national security without addressing the nuclear policies and posture and the doctrine of use of those nondemocratic countries. how do you persuade those countries? i know and i think anyone that has worked there knows one of the issues we care passionately about and get immersed and become experts to rise to the level of the president or three
ministers. president obama was an exception in terms of the serious thought he gavtalk hegave to these issuo matter how deeply the director general for arms control feels about the issue, it is unlikely the president or prime minister will raise them or make them subject of the conversation with other world leaders particularly those of nuclear weapons states. so there is a need not only to make sure they care about the issue as deeply as you do but also enough to apply equally the outreach to all of the nuclear weapons states. it's not only the five recognized state and the others
that are outside of the mpg but it's in the discussions the civil society tends to focus on those in the nuclear umbrella and that is understandable but just beware of the practical effects you should not expect great results whether it is the removal of a small number of tactical nuclear weapons the u.s. has pre- positioned or convincing nato to change its definition as a nuclear alliance it is difficult to see them changing their security policies anytime there is a genuine
threat of aggression when in fact the european countries are occupied by their neighbor and there is a willingness to destabilize. i think many of the members of nato would seek to change in thn the declared policy as inviting additional aggression whether overt or covert. but again i would like to warn the advocates against giving a lecture which i know i'm giving a lecture i get the irony. they face a genuine security
threat will not take well the lesson of their defensive policy from a state that is unwilling to give the same lecture or condemnation back against those in pyongyang on moscow. a further point on europe and nato even if one or five allies decided they would like the u.s. to remove the tactical bombs, it is a limited step but doesn't fundamentally change the security policy while i'm sure it would be welcomed by advocates as an important step
forward, it's important to be aware of how limited that would be. it is a huge step from discussing or changing the policy not only the u.s. but other nuclear weapons states have defined as a central purpose which is to deter anyone else using them. so to try to sum up what can you do to live up to its potential, one others can talk about is to strengthen and make specific and
they mentioned the recommendation to link this to the nonproliferation treaty by making mandatory membership a prerequisite. second, i hope the advocates in the next month and afterwards we'll do alwill do all they cano elaborate a verification mechanism that would give confidence to actual declarations and i would add they would be smart and work hard on the initiatives such as the international partnership for the nuclear disarmament as a concrete area which could work
together towards a specific go goal. third is to elaborate what would be the actual process of disarmament but it is something you can give serious thought on how to get step by step and i know people don't like that phrase. you would like it better if you wrote some of the steps yourself and it would add credibility to the movement itself and finally, on the suggestions once the convention is drafted by the pope the excellent diplomats worked on it for their attention
not just on the text, but working with real-world security challenges. what can be done, what would you do if you are in the position from london, paris, beijing or washington what are the security challenges that could be addressed in building down to words zero and i would even suggest something that i think is of an enormous practical value which is such discussions if they are having a hard time talking to each other about their strategic stability challenges i think we could learn something from diplomats
in mexico in austria and elsewhere playing the role talking to each other. this is very well summarized by the same article to summarize the summary i hope the u.s. will express understanding of the sincere motives of those who were pushing for the convention and i think offer specific concerns about the text and what comes after that the u.s. can articulate in detail the circumstances under which it will be possible to build to
move to zero and work on the extension of the treaty and reassert the commitment to the reductions. a lot of this is very ambitious. i hope the sponsors will keep their eye on the calendar month just to get through june with a tech to that elicits champagne and hugs but a strategy that actually addresses real-world concerns of those who feel nuclear weapons offer than security and that ken lay the basis between the nonnuclear weapon states and the nuclear weapon states. thank you. [applause]
i want to thank you both. i think ambition o these days is something we ought to strive for. you both focused on the negotiations and the treaty and we have a lot of food for thought. looking ahead to 20 tiny, initiations are completed this year or next, the nuclear weapon states would they be able to agree to disagree on this issue when they convene for the review conference and be prepared to move on to find common ground and also a constructive
discussion of how to ease the tensions between the states you made some references to that. in the creative search underground for the office as i would open up to those of you. that was instructive and yes we can take that it wa but it was a constructive proposal and we find a lot of common ground. for us and others we would do
anything. this is also our intention. the big question is how to integrate the nuclear weapons state. we are not naïve. we also understand the security dilemmas and discussion and we want to keep that treaty open. we don't want to prescribe anything in this treaty to the nuclear weapons states that are coming together with them to find the circumstances and
coming back to the questions i think if we work on this and then look back at the goals we had in the action plan maybe we could make some progress there. so this is not a competition we want to stress. something to add to it with other countries as proponents to work together with security for all that we need to recognize we
want security for all. >> i think the best way to focus for success in the 2020 review conference of the nonproliferation treaty is to be less obsessive about it. i mean a couple of things. first, we have a pattern through several review conferences which there is broad painful consensus sometimes on an important advance in sometimes minor advances that has been taken hostage to the issue of establishment of a wmd free zone in the middle east and that is what caused the last review conference two years ago not to fail because i don't believe it
failed but it didn't reach a consensus document. the more we obsess about how crucial it is in 2020 if we label the failure to get a consensus document and failure of the treaty what we are doing is raising the leverage in the states that are obsessing about the middle east zones and raising the likelihood that we will fail to have an agreement. so that is the first in which i say obsession is the enemy of focus in this process. the second sentence is a new one and it will have to deal with what is likely to be by 2020 a new convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons that will already be enforced by
that point. if that convention is tightly linked to the nonproliferation treaty along the lines i suggested, and if building out from the adoption of the convention there has been a sincere effort by its advocates to engage with nuclear weapon states into the beneficiaries of the turns in the ways that i suggested there is no reason for that to become an obstacle through a meaningful conclusion in the conference. if on the other hand, the review process itself is used as a shaming tool in a way similar to
what egypt does in the middle east zones but in this case with regards to the convention itself it would be dictating to both purposes. the nuclear weapons states that have to one day change their policy if this ever is to succeed are not going to be moved by a deadlock and hand wringing over a deadlock at a conference in new york. they are going to be moved by concrete actions and assistance. i would hope that it would square well with the purposes of this convention. >> okay, thank you. great answers and again a lot of