Skip to main content

Ambassador Duarte on Iran Agreement

Sergio Duarte held the post of United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs from 2007-2012. He has shared with us his document Reflections on the Iran Agreement, which we blog here.

***

Reflections on the Iran Agreement
Sergio Duarte 
Ambassador, former United Nations High Representative for Disarment Affairs


Despite the alarmist claims from some quarters that the agreement achieved between Iran and the P5+1 is fatally flawed, the majority of the international community and public opinion worldwide received it favorably and with renewed hope. The JCPOA was hailed as a positive step as it underscores the resolve of the parties concerned to allay suspicions about the nature of the Iranian nuclear program and enhances the existing instruments of international law regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Strict adherence to its provisions by all Parties concerned will help prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and contribute to greater confidence and stability in inter-State relationships in that part of the world and beyond. It must be stressed, however, that this agreement is not an offspring of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT); its provisions should not be construed as precedents to be imposed upon others under the NPT or other existing agreements.



States that did not possess atomic arsenals agreed in the NPT not to seek the acquisition of such weapons in exchange for a pledge by the nuclear-armed ones to take concrete steps toward their elimination. The NPT also recognized the right of every State to develop and use atomic energy for peaceful purposes. As a significant number of them stepped up their civil nuclear programs, the effort to contain the number of those having such means of destruction at their disposal has been quite successful. All non-nuclear States in the world are now parties to that Treaty. Over the past forty-five years, very few doubts have arisen about compliance with their obligations and none acquired nuclear weapons. Only one State ever left the NPT to develop its own nuclear arsenal.



Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about the universal aspiration of peoples everywhere to see nuclear weapons eliminated from national arsenals. The States that possess such armament have not only refused to accept concrete, irreversible and legally binding commitments to nuclear disarmament but also consistently resist every attempt negotiate meaningful disarmament agreements in the multilateral organs. For several decades, they have insisted on the adoption of mandatory measures turned exclusively toward the reinforcement of the non-proliferation regime and all but neglected the disarmament side of the bargain contained in the NPT. Some of them, together with their allies, dismiss as a “distraction” the proposals to examine in depth the catastrophic consequences of atomic detonations and vehemently oppose current efforts to ban nuclear arms – the only remaining category of weapons of mass destruction whose use is not yet prohibited.


Some analysts have speculated that once the national parliaments of the countries concerned endorse the Iran agreement the world’s attention should turn to other questions of proliferation, particularly the case of the People’s Republic of Korea. That would be a welcome development indeed. Unlike Iran, the DPRK already developed atomic weapons and seems intent on acquiring intercontinental means of delivery. However, the search of a solution for the situation in the Korean peninsula should not prevent nuclear-armed States – particularly those that are Parties to the NPT – from taking seriously their responsibilities vis-à-vis their own regions and the rest of the world. Their credibility and that of the existing regime is at stake. The time has come for nuclear weapon States to pay due attention to the concerns of the overwhelming majority of the international community over their indefinite possession of the most dangerous, cruel and indiscriminate means of destruction ever devised and seeming willingness to use it as they see fit. It is not possible to maintain for much longer a state of affairs in which a handful of nations claim an exclusive right to protect their own security by wielding awesome means of destruction that jeopardize everyone else’s security together with the future of the human race as well.

 

Comments

Rama Fotocopy said…
I think this is a very good adalahpostingan. not every day I get to see posts like this. if there is a chance please visit fotocopy murah jakarta Thank you

Popular posts from this blog

'Not as dumb as he looks' - Muhammad Ali on Bertrand Russell

In his autobiography The Greatest: My Own Story, Muhammad Ali recounts how Bertrand Russell got in contact with him, and their ensuing correspondence:


***
For days I was talking to people from a whole new world. People who were not even interested in sports, especially prizefighting. One in particular I will never forget: a remarkable man, seventy years older than me but with a fresh outlook which seemed fairer than that of any white man I had ever met in America.
My brother Rahaman had handed me the phone, saying, ‘Operator says a Mr. Bertrand Russell is calling Mr. Muhammad Ali.’ I took it and heard the crisp accent of an Englishman: ‘Is this Muhammad Ali?’ When I said it was, he asked if I had been quoted correctly.
I acknowledged that I had been, but wondered out loud, ‘Why does everyone want to know what I think about Viet Nam? I’m no politician, no leader. I’m just an athlete.’
‘Well,’ he said, ‘this is a war more barbaric than others, and because a mystique is built up around a cham…

Brexit Diary: Generous to a Fault

Generous to a Fault

Hapless Theresa May stepped nervously into the June European Council in Brussels. Her own status at such meetings is now qualified by the UK’s notification to withdraw from the European Union, which takes effect in March 2019. She can no longer participate in Council discussions about Brexit and has to leave the room. Before she departed the dinner table last night, however, Mrs May outlined an ‘offer’ on the rights of European Union citizens residing in the UK once that country has left the EU. The full ‘offer’ is due to be submitted in writing on Monday 26 June.

Of course, citizens’ rights are codified in law and guaranteed by treaty, to which the UK has acceded. Accordingly, millions of people have moved around the European Union, with many of them settling in the United Kingdom to live and work. The UK has legal obligations towards them. Continuity in their rights is required, if and when the UK leaves the EU. 

The initial response to Mrs May’s remarks from group…

Nuclear Posture Review: Two letters of protest from Japan

The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation received copies of the following letters, dated 6 February 2018, from the Japan Council against A and H Bombs. The letters, written in response to the publication of the US Nuclear Posture Review, are addressed to President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. We ask that as many people and organisations as possible circulate these letters as an act of solidarity with anti-nuclear campaigners in "Japan, the A-bombed country".

* * *

To President Donald Trump United States of America 6 February 2018
Letter of Protest against the US Nuclear Posture Review
We, of the people of Japan, the A-bombed country, strongly protest against your nuclear policy formulated in the newly released ‘Nuclear Posture Review’, which brings the US much closer to the actual use of nuclear weapons by modernizing your nuclear arsenals and developing new nuclear weapons.
Trying to justify that nuclear weapons are necessary for security, the Nuclear Post…