1

Arctic Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

NOW IS THE TIME

Third in the Arctic Symposium Series by theWalter and Duncan Gordon Foundation

January 6, 2011Munk Centre, University of Toronto

Toronto, Canada_________________________Presented by Adele Buckley

Arctic Security Committee, Canadian Pugwash

2

Canadian Pugwash Campaign

GOAL: Keep the ANWFZ proposal at the forefront in interaction with all nuclear and Arctic non-nuclear governments until such time as these governments are committed to carrying the process forward

Establishment of an Arctic Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone is a confidence building step toward a world free of nuclear weapons

3

OVERALL NWFZs Role of the United Nations The Arctic today, including military activity Tools for Governance The path to an Arctic NWFZ Supporters of Arctic NWFZ Canadian government position at the start of

2011 The “TO-DO” list

NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONES

5

What is a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone?Principles that the United Nations* has set for NWFZs Non-possession Non-deployment Non-manufacture, including delivery systems Non-use of Nuclear Weapons The decision to create a NWFZ should be initiated within the region

and arrived at freely by the states that make up the region NWFZ treaty - verifiable and of unlimited duration NWFZ treaty - Nuclear weapon states have to be involved so

they will (subsequently) ratify protocols that recognize the treaty and offer negative security assurances

* UNGA 1975

6

7

Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

TreatyDate

Ratification Protocols by Nuclear Weapon States (from UN 1st Committee Oct/Nov 2010)

Antarctica 1959 1961 ALL

Tlatelolco Treaty Latin America & the Caribbean

1967 1969 ALL. Consolidation resolution adopted in 2010

Treaty of Rarotonga South Pacific

1985 1986 U.S. to pursue ratification

Bangkok Treaty Southeast Asia

1995 1997 U.S. to conduct consultations in an effort to sign and ratify

Pelindaba Treaty Africa

1996 2009 Ratified by UK, France. U.S. to pursue ratification. Egypt refrains. India conveys unambiguous assurance that it will respect the treaty

Semipalatinsk Treaty Central Asia

2006 2009 U.S. UK, France decline to set up protocols, since NW treaty obligation to Russia would not be affected by the NWFZ zone

Mongolia 2000 2000 Affirming resolution , 2010

Number of Countries 116

8

Benefits of NWFZs to the broader goals of

Arms Control and Disarmament

A nuclear free zone is a step toward a nuclear weapons convention

Delegitimizes nuclear weapons, constrains nuclear proliferation, builds cooperative security

Sharpens the focus of regional collaboration against nuclear weapons

9

Historical perspective on Arctic NWFZ First proposal for a nuclear weapons free

Arctic – 1964 published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, by two scientists – one Russian, one American

Indigenous groups, including the Inuit Circumpolar Conference(from 1974), pressed the case for a nuclear-weapon-free Arctic

Gorbachev proposed an “Arctic zone of peace” 1990? [not including the Arctic ocean]

ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

11

The United Nations: a very important actor in NWFZ creation Article VII of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

(NPT) and numerous UN resolutions affirm the right of states to establish NWFZ’s in their territories

The 2010 NPT Review Conference received the Declaration and recommendations for the Second Conference of States Parties and Signatories of Treaties that Establish NWFZs and Mongolia (April 30, 2010). This included the recommendations of the Civil Society Forum, United Nations April 29, 2010.

The above declaration is annexed as information pertaining to this presentation

12

NWFZM/CONF.2010/1Second Conference of States Parties

and Signatories of Treaties thatEstablish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones

and Mongolia5 May 2010

Original: English10-34972 (E) 070510

*1034972*New York, 30 April 2010

Outcome DocumentSecond Conference of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones

and MongoliaNew York, 30 April 2010

On the occasion of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty onNon-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons we, the States parties and signatories to theTreaties of Tlatelolco (1967), Rarotonga (1985), Bangkok (1995), Pelindaba (1996)and Central Asia (2006) which have established nuclear-weapon-free zones, as wellas Mongolia — a nuclear-weapon-free State — have met for the purpose ofstrengthening the nuclear-weapon-free zones regimes and contributing to the nucleardisarmament and nuclear non-proliferation process, and in particular to analyseways of cooperating that can promote the achievement of the universal goal of anuclear-weapon-free world.Bearing this in mind:1. We reaffirm ………………

[APPENDIX]

13

United Nations First Committeemeeting Oct 11 – Nov 2, 2010A full range of nuclear disarmament topics was considered.

On Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, the final report (www.reachingcriticalwill.org/) summarizes:

“The 2010 meetings….continued to highlight NWFZs as an essential element of the nuclear disarmament regime. The momentum behind establishing NWFZs ……was palpable in the First Committee.”

14

UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon’s 5-Point Proposal on Nuclear Disarmament1. Pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the NPT – on nuclear

disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.

2. Strengthen security in the disarmament process, and…assure non-nuclear-weapon states against nuclear weapons threats.

3. Ensure that disarmament is rooted in legal obligations through universal membership in multilateral treaties, regional nuclear-weapon-free zones*, a new treaty on fissile materials, and ratification and entry into force of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

4. Ensure disarmament is visible to the public through greater accountability and transparency – thus countries with nuclear weapons should publish more information about what they are doing to fulfill their disarmament commitments.

5. Recognize that nuclear disarmament also requires eliminating other weapons of mass destruction and limiting missiles, space weapons and conventional arms.

August 3, 2009 http://www.un.org/sg/articleFull.asp?TID=105&Type=Op-Ed* [emphasis added]

15

Conclusion

There is evidence that NWFZs are becoming more prominent as part of overall Arms Control

16

Important regions for new* NWFZs Northeast Asia Middle East

–the 2010 NPT Review Conference agreed to meet to consider a Middle East NWFZ in 2012; per the resolution of the 1995 NPT Review Conference

Central Europe

The Arctic

*IAEA official (Oct 18, UN 1st Committee) offers the assistance of the agency in creating new NWFZ, when requested

17

THE “NEW” CANADIAN ARCTIC- NOW BEING FORMED

Mackenzie River, NWT Iqualuit, Nunavut

19

The Arctic Overlap of the two great security threats of the 21st century – CLIMATE CHANGE & NUCLEAR WEAPONS

20

Climate Change <<->> Polar Ice Melts & Arctic climate affects the global climate

A major adaptation is needed in the way of life for Arctic indigenous peoples

There will be environmental refugees from coastal regions; requiring adaptation from a culture of the sea to a

culture of the land Traditional knowledge, gained over 100s/1000s of years about land,

water, snow, marine conditions, wildlife must be valued and utilized Youth must be educated to full participation in the new frontier; must be

capable of employment in senior technical and management positions Strategies and policies of adaptation must be jointly developed by Arctic

peoples and their governments. Sustainability and environmental protection must be paramount

Increased military presence is certain, and in some instances could overlap with territorial jurisdiction of indigenous peoples.

21

International law (UNCLOS) will resolve sovereignty claims on continental shelveswww.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/arctic

22

UNCLOS – Sovereign Rights Under the ConventionRIGHT DEFINITION

Territorial sea Not exceeding 12 nautical miles from the baseline; complete sovereignty, including resources

Contiguous zone Not extending beyond 24 nautical miles from the baseline; regulatory rights relating to infringement in the territorial sea

Exclusive economic zone Not extending beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline; coastal State has sovereign rights for natural resources, living or non-living, as well as sea-bed and subsoil. Jurisdiction on structures, artificial islands, marine research, protection of marine environment. Right to regulate for prevention of marine pollution and control vessel source pollution.

Continental shelf and its delineation Natural prolongation of the landmass of the coastal state to the outer edge of the continental margin up to 200 nautical miles, or if it is less, coincides with the exclusive economic zone. The limit is 350 nautical miles, or 100 nautical miles from the 2500 metre isobath

Delineation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles

Supporting scientific and technical data is submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which shall make recommendations to the coastal States

Exploration of the continental shelf or exploitation of its natural resources

Only with express consent of the coastal State

23

Circumpolar nations add new military hardwareClockwise: Russia – submarine; Russia – surface warship; Norway – armed Arctic patrol vessel; Norway – 4 ice capable vessels of this class ; Norway – armed Arctic patrol vessel [Rob Huebert, Univ. of Calgary – Arctic Security Challenges & Issues- Ottawa, 01/28/10]

24

Ice capable conflict and surveillance vesselsClockwise: Sweden/Finland- Arctic exercise 2009; Canada-Northern exercises; Canada – Arctic Offshore patrol vessel; Denmark –armed, ice capable inspection vessel [Rob Huebert]

15

General Arrangements – Upper Deck

25

Avoid militarization for support of territorial claims – instead, collaborate Needed – multilateral collaboration- for example: Search and rescue Environmental problems, e.g. oil spill Suppression of particulate matter

[exacerbates absorption of sunlight, and increased warming]

Surveillance of shipping lanes Fisheries regulation_______________________________________________________

Check our report-“Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons

A Task Long Overdue”

26

Northern Strategy for Canada Canadian government officials say:“The current and foreseeable threats or challenges are not military; the objective is thus

to evolve a rules-based, regulated environment in order to best serve the development needs and interests of the people of the Arctic. There is movement toward a regulated environment that will meet the commercial and environmental challenges (and opportunities) that are growing, and in the process honour the interests and well-being of the North’s permanent residents.  ……………….

The governance development in the Arctic is not militarization but regulation – and

the implementation of the latter depends on logistics support from the Canadian Forces”

Notes from Ernie Regehr on remarks by Brigadier-General John Collin, Nov. 9, 2010,forum "True North Strong and Free: Canada's Role in the Arctic" , CIGI, Waterloo, ON

TOOLS FOR GOVERNANCE

28

ARCTIC GOVERNANCE PLAN International collaboration

Avoid militarization of the Arctic International treaties: many issues relevant to the

Arctic & its peoples, for negotiation in the near term Settle sovereignty claims Support adaptation for Arctic ecology and people Expand science research Develop new technology for this new frontier Develop new means of governance

Set a global example for innovations in governance

29

The Arctic Council today

The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental circumpolar forum to collaborate on Arctic issues generally Environmental protection and sustainable development

Circumpolar nations are the members Indigenous peoples are permanent participants Others

Observers: several countries NGOs: an extensive list

30

The Arctic Council as it needs to be in the future[from symposium “ A Brief History of the Arctic Council” Dec 2, 2010 by Dr. Tom Axworthy, Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation]

PAST – In 1988, a major Arctic arms control conference was convened in Canada (SfP supported by WDGF), followed by a stream of meetings/statements/panels that led to formation of the Arctic Council in 1996. Canada was the first chair (1996-1998) United States was a hesitant participant, finally agreeing to

indigenous participation but adamantly rejecting security matters. The U.S. joined the Arctic Council – security was out

FUTURE - The mandate of the Arctic Council should be expanded to include peace and security issues. AND ALSO – add a permanent secretariat; bring back the

Ambassador for Circumpolar Affairs; Canada- chair from 2013

31

International Collaboration TOOLS for GOVERNANCE Arctic Council: Its mandate must enlarge, including security, &

still retaining decision making only for circumpolar nations and peoples

A Scientific Committee on Arctic Research (as in the Antarctic) UNCLOS1 rules on ocean area sovereignty, based data about

the seabed Economic resources: sufficient funding must be allocated by

governments; multinationals that benefit from Arctic resources or transpolar shipping must contribute

Agreements / Treaties: regional, national, pan-Arctic, bilateral, multilateral, international. The idea of Arctic NWFZ to be introduced conceptually, starting now

1 UNCLOS United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea

SETTING OUT ON THE PATH TO AN

ARCTIC NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE-

ZONE

33

THE MAIN CHALLENGES

Many circumpolar nations are part of NATO, a nuclear alliance. Arctic nations U.S. and Russia are nuclear weapon states Security policy: planning of the Arctic

circumpolar states does not, to date, include an Arctic NWFZ

BUT The current level of military threat is low

34

The Outlook[IISS* Strategic Comments Strategic.Comments@iiss.org Dec

16, 2010] “All the Arctic nations….remain committed to international

law, institutions, governance and cooperation….for the resolution of disputes and promoted of increased economic activity……………Rather than implying an Arctic arms race, resource gold rush, or new ‘cold war’, military developments in the region appear to be of secondary importance compared with continuing cooperative efforts to deal with environmental, economic

and energy security.”

* IISS International Institute for Strategic Studies

35

Further Outcomes of an Arctic NWFZ to goals of Arms Control

and Disarmament An Arctic NWFZ treaty would create the controls that would greatly diminish or eliminate the possibility of terrorists transporting nuclear material or nuclear bombs by Arctic sea lanes.

An ANWFZ supports the Global Security Initiative for control of nuclear material, and nuclear waste, especially in the lands of the Russian Arctic

The Russian Northern Fleet, particularly the SSBN class, is likely to have its main future in the Pacific [Michael Wallace, Canadian Pugwash/Science for Peace Forum, November, 2010]

ANWFZ could hasten removal of Russian submarines from the Arctic

36

MEET THE CHALLENGES start the Arctic NWFZ treaty negotiations Nations must proceed with urgency; there is need for

comprehensive assistance to the Arctic peoples – indigenous and non-indigenous – for preservation of the environment, security from conflict, and adaptation to climate change. NWFZ has to be present [but in the background, for now.]

Arctic peoples must be at the negotiating table. Flexibility in negotiation is the key, since each nuclear weapon-free

zone is specific to the geography and politics of the participating sovereign states For example: rules for transit of nuclear weapons vary from zone to zone.

The US and Russia might find that the challenges posed in the Arctic would be the catalyst to extend the already-agreed arms cuts in the New START treaty and to build co-operative security mechanisms that serve to replace nuclear deterrence and facilitate a global nuclear weapons free regime.

37

Alternate starting pathways leading towards an Arctic NWFZ UN General Assembly resolution introduced by

Arctic non-nuclear weapon states Nordic NWFZ Nordic and Canadian NWFZ

Entire countries, or just north of Arctic Circle? Land first, then sea, then air OR sea first, then land, then

air U.S. and Russia might find reductions in the Arctic

would be a useful way to continue the agreed arms cuts in the New START treaty, and could be a “trial run” for a nuclear weapons convention

38

What is the path for the Government of Canada? Canadian government could assume an

international leadership role for an Arctic NWFZ, as concrete evidence of its stated policy of support for nuclear disarmament

OF NOTE: (1) NNWS in the Arctic, including Canada, have already fulfilled important criteria AND

(2) Membership in NATO need not be a hindrance to formation; other NWFZ nations (e.g. Australia) are also in nuclear alliances

SUPPORTERS OF AN ARCTIC NUCLEAR- WEAPON-FREE ZONE

40

Support for an Arctic NWFZ Leaders in international Pugwash

Circumpolar Pugwash groups:- Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden Amb. Jayantha Dhanapala:- President of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World

Affairs Senator Roméo Dallaire: Parliament of Canada Several members of the Parliament of Denmark Interaction Council (former Prime Ministers and world leaders)

– meeting of April 2010 Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation (Canada) World Future Council (United Kingdom) Nordic Council –Nordic NWFZ proposal submitted Several Canadian peace groups Soon - PNND, Canada – future ANWFZ motion intended for House of

Commons

41

The Canadian Pugwash Statement: Protect the Arctic with an Arctic Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Preamble – the situation Main challenges Meeting the challenges Policy/ action for the Arctic Nuclear Weapons

States (NWS) Policy/action for Arctic NNWS

Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden

Action for Civil Society Endorsements – for Arctic NWFZ

42

Canadian Parliament’s position – at the start of 2011- supports a nuclear weapon convention June 2, 2010 [from Senator Hugh Segal’s motion in the Senate, passed unanimously] “…encourage the Government of Canada

to engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention to deploy a major world-wide Canadian diplomatic initiative in

support of preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear disarmament”

December 7, 2010The House of Commons gave unanimous consent to a motion submitted by the Bill Siksay MP, Chair of the Canadian Section of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND), endorsing the United Nations Secretary-General’s Five-Point-Plan for nuclear disarmament and calling on the Government of Canada to “….engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention as proposed by the UN Secretary-General”

43

Connecting: ANWFZ as a support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention NWC NWC is an international, universal treaty for

nuclear abolition, supported by verification NWFZ helps to build co-operative security

mechanisms that facilitate a global nuclear-weapon-free regime

Planning and negotiating for a NWFZ is a confidence building measure.

“Only in a world verifiably free of nuclear weapons will there be no proliferation” – Jayantha Dhanapala at 2010 World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates, Hiroshima. 12-14 November, 2010

THE “TO-DO” LIST

45

Start of a “TO-DO” List

Civil society groups, educators, indigenous groups and individuals can and should visit their MPs and write to the Government of Canada in support of Arctic NWFZ

[as recommended by Donald Sinclair, DG, and Yves Brodeur, ADM, International Security Branch, DFAIT - personal communication to A. Buckley]

[from Senator Hugh Segal’s motion in the Senate, passed on June 2, 2010] “…encourage the Government of Canada

to engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention to deploy a major world-wide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of

preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear disarmament”

Arctic circumpolar nations should present a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly , 2011, in support of a NWFZ for the Arctic [recommendation of Jayantha Dhanapala, President, Pugwash Conferences]

Throughout the circumpolar region, press governments to uphold a “northern vision” of peace

46

Arctic NWFZ should be on the national agenda of all circumpolar nationsPOTENTIAL CHAMPIONS Government of Canada Governments of circumpolar nations Arctic Council, and Nordic Council Civil society PNND (Canada) and PNND international United Nations First Committee

47

The last word

“Canada must take this issue very seriously. Creating an Arctic nuclear-weapon-free zone will be a long process. Now is the time to launch this initiative, while the Arctic is being shaped, because this opportunity will not exist for long.”

Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire, Senate of Canada

48

Contact informationCanadian Pugwash Arctic Security WG Adele Buckley adele-buckley@rogers.com Michael Wallace michael.wallace@ubc.ca Steven Staples sstaples@rideauinstitute.ca Erika Simpson simpson@uwo.ca www.arcticnwfz.ca www.pugwashgroup.caWalter and Duncan Gordon Foundation gordonfn@gordonfn.org

Subscribe to: Arctic NWFZ (arctic-nuclear-weapon-free@googlegroups.com )

Arctic Security Group (arctic-security@googlegroups.com ) Report: Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons, A Task

Long Overdue

(M. Wallace & S. Staples)

49

50

Annex NWFZM/CONF.2010/1 Declaration and recommendations for the Second Conference ofStates Parties and Signatories of Treaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Mongolia (30 April 2010),and the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on theNon-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the CivilSociety Forum for Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, held atUnited Nations, New York, on 29 April 2010

The citizens listed below, participants of the Civil Society Forum for NuclearWeapon Free Zones, held on 29 April 2010 at the United Nations in New York:1. Affirm the role that local, national and regional nuclear-weapon-freezones play in delegitimizing nuclear weapons, constraining nuclear proliferation,building cooperative security and paving the way for a nuclear-weapons-free world;2. Express their continued support for the nuclear-weapon-free zonesestablished in Antarctica, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Seabed, OuterSpace, the South Pacific, Africa, South-East Asia, Mongolia and Central Asia;3. Call upon all States, in particular the nuclear-weapon States, to fullyrespect existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, including to ratify the respectiveprotocols and remove reservations to current ratifications, in order to guarantee thezones remain free of nuclear weapons and the threat of their use;4. Support the exploration of possibilities for establishing nuclear-weaponfreezones in the Middle East, North-East Asia, the Arctic and Central Europe, andcall upon Governments in these regions to undertake multilateral dialogue,deliberations and negotiations to establish such zones;

51

ANNEX (Cont’d)

5. Commend States — including Austria, Mongolia and New Zealand —which have taken national legislative measures to prohibit nuclear weapons, andencourage other national legislatures to adopt similar measures;6. Believe that technical and financial resources dedicated to producing anddeploying nuclear weapons — including most of the $100 billion global nuclearweaponsbudget — should be converted for civilian purposes, including meetingUnited Nations Millennium Development Goals and combating climate change;7. Support actions, whether by Governments or private investors, to divestfrom corporations involved in the manufacture and deployment of nuclear weaponsand their delivery systems, and commend the Governments of New Zealand andNorway and cities that have undertaken such divestment actions;8. Commend the Governments in the regional nuclear-weapon-free zonesfor joining together in the inaugural Conference of States Parties and Signatories ofTreaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones, in Mexico in 2005 and again atthe United Nations in 2010, and encourage the States parties to enhance theircommunication and collaboration and to establish institutional arrangements tofacilitate this;9. Encourage States parties to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties to expandtheir collaboration in strengthening existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, supportingthe establishment of additional zones, including single-State nuclear-weapon-freezones, and advancing the achievement of a nuclear-weapons-free world, andcommend the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America andthe Caribbean for their leadership in this area;

52

ANNEX (Cont’d)

10. Encourage States which host foreign nuclear weapons to exercise theirsovereign right to have such weapons withdrawn, enabling them to establish or joinnuclear-weapon-free zones;11. Commend United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his five-pointplan for nuclear disarmament, which supports nuclear-weapon-free zones andproposes a number of other measures, including a call upon States parties to theTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to undertake negotiations on anuclear-weapons convention or a package of agreements;12. Call on the 2010 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear WeaponsReview Conference to agree to a preparatory process for a nuclear-weaponsconvention that would pave the way for negotiations while simultaneouslyadvancing technical, political and legal aspects such as verification, confidence buildingand diminishing the role of nuclear weapons;13. Note that, as work proceeds to negotiate new measures leading to nucleardisarmament in all its aspects, it is vital that already-agreed measures be broughtinto force and implemented. Thus, commend the nuclear-weapon-free-zone Stateson their leadership promoting entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and developing its global verification system;14. Affirm the role of civil society in the establishment of local, national andregional nuclear-weapon-free zones, and in collaborating with Governments for theachievement of a nuclear-weapons-free world.