View previous stories
	Working to rid the world of nuclear weapons by Hans Blix Sweden   The financial crisis and global warming have had the world’s attention in recent years. Thanks to President Barack Obama’s initiative, perhaps the season for nuclear disarmament has finally arrived.   President Obama will meet Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Prague to sign a nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia that will reduce their arsenals by 30 percent.   The new treaty will be received positively. There will be praise for the Obama administration’s attitude toward arms control and disarmament and for Russia’s readiness to join hands with the United States.   Though not achieving the drastic cuts in nuclear arsenals and delivery vehicles that the world is longing for, the U.S.-Russian treaty is important and encouraging. Coming after Bush administration policies that nearly sent the two states into a new Cold War, the new treaty constitutes the resetting of an important button. It preserves arrangements for confidence-building mutual inspections and sets the stage for negotiating more far-reaching cuts.   We should be aware, however, that a next step of deeper reductions will hardly be attainable unless there is agreement on extensive cooperation on missile defense. Russia is deeply suspicious that the missile shield could enable the United States to launch an attack on any target in Russia while itself remaining immune to any such attacks. Further bilateral disarmament will also be impeded if Russia feels that the NATO alliance seeks to encircle it by expanding its military cooperation through membership or otherwise with more states neighboring Russia.   The signing will take place one year after President Obama’s presentation in Prague of a detailed program for the revival of global nuclear arms control and disarmament. Later this month he will be the host in Washington of a large summit meeting that will focus on nuclear security. In May, the operation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will be the subject of review at a conference in New York in which nearly all governments in the world will take part. The review that took place in 2005 ended in acrimony and some predicted the end of the treaty.   Through adherence to the nonproliferation treaty that was concluded in 1970, states have committed themselves to stay away from nuclear weapons or to move away from these weapons. If all states had joined and fulfilled their commitments, the treaty would have led by now to a world free of nuclear weapons. This has not happened, of course. The number of nuclear weapons, which peaked at more than 50,000 during the Cold War, is still over 20,000 — most of them in the United States and Russia. The number of states with nuclear weapons has gone from five to nine since 1970.   There is also frustration at the lack of progress on many important items relevant to the treaty. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not entered into force because the United States, China and a number of other states have not ratified it. The negotiation of a convention prohibiting the production of enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons remains blocked at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. The Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency for strengthened safeguards inspections remains unratified by a large number of states, including Iran.   Some items are bound to attract much attention at the nonproliferation treaty review conference in May. One is that 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the obligation of five nuclear-weapon states under the treaty to negotiate toward nuclear disarmament has not led us anywhere near zero. Another grievance — especially among Arab states — is that Israel has nuclear weapons and has refrained from adhering to the treaty. A third is that the treaty has been violated by several states. Although Iraq and Libya have been brought into compliance, North Korea has not and Iran and perhaps others might be aiming to ignore the treaty.   As everyone knows, views on Iran’s program for the enrichment of uranium have long been divided and they are likely to remain divided at the nonproliferation treaty conference. There are many reasons for suspecting that the aim of Iran’s enrichment program is the development of a nuclear weapon in breach of treaty obligations or, at least, to move close to the ability to make a weapon. This has already resulted in a dangerous increase of tension in the region.   Why has it not been possible so far to persuade Iran to abandon or suspend the enrichment program? It is hard to avoid the impression that the approach to Iran has often been high-handed and clumsy. Iran has been told that negotiations about a variety of benefits would be open but only on the condition that the enrichment program first be suspended. Who gives up a trump card before the game?   President Obama has had the good sense to authorize direct talks without any precondition. These talks are now stuck, but should be resumed.   States developing nuclear weapons have mostly done so for perceived security reasons and for status. When Iran began its alleged enrichment program in the 1980s it might have rightly perceived Iraq as a future nuclear threat. With that threat gone, how wise has it been for the U.S. and Israel to float the idea of bombing Iran’s enrichment facilities?   Would it not be wiser to offer diplomatic relations and guarantees against armed attacks/subversion as a part of a nuclear deal? This was done in the case of North Korea. Why not in the case of Iran?   The treaty review conference will hardly enter into these questions. But it will probably discuss how the concept of a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction can be taken up for consideration. Such a zone could well be designed so as to facilitate ventures to use nuclear power for electricity generation or desalination of water, perhaps even on a regional basis.   However, to reduce tensions in the region, the concept needs to exclude from the whole zone not only nuclear weapons but also plants for the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of plutonium.   In the last few years the appeals have intensified for governments to aim, as the nonproliferation treaty does, to free the world from nuclear weapons. In January 2007, former U.S. Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn published an article in which they reminded the United States and the world that the Cold War was over. They argued that if the United States, Russia and others continued to see nuclear weapons as necessary for their security, others would see the same thing and proliferation would result. They urged that the United States and Russia take the lead in a long process that would eventually result in a nuclear-weapon-free world.   Their plea has had a broad and strong response in the world. While focusing on many near-term measures, such as the current deal, Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev jointly espoused the long-term aim of full disarmament in a declaration in London in April 2009.   Is this long-term aim naïve and utopian? Not necessarily. Between 1910 and 1945 the world experienced two world wars and a collapsed League of Nations. Much could happen between 2010 and 2045. Interdependence is rapidly accelerating and forcing states to show regard for each other’s security interests. For the moment, however, there is only a hopeful start on a long journey.   * Hans Blix was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997 and chief U.N. arms inspector for Iraq from 2000 to 2003.   May 2010   From the NPT Review Conference 2010: half time glass half full, by Rebecca Johnson. (OpenDemocracy)   Frustration at the failure of nuclear weapon states to honour the agreements made at previous NPT Conferences is growing. In heated exchanges in New York the 184 countries without nuclear weapons want to ensure that this time the NPT outcome has direction, accountability and muscle. Half way through the conference Rebecca Johnson reports that there is still everything to play for..   * Visit the link below for more details. Visit the related web page
	Interview with António Guterres U.N. high commissioner for refugees by Elizabeth Dickinson UNHCR   From Darfur to Afghanistan, the U.N.’s point man on refugees says, the world’s conflicts are getting “more worrisome and more difficult to solve.”   As High Commissioner for refugees at the United Nations, António Guterres monitors the safety, security, and well being of the some 10.5 million refugees in the world today. And though that figure is down by 8 percent from 2009, thanks mostly to returns and changes of status among the displaced from Iraq and Colombia, the challenge it poses is still enormous. Now, as he comes to the end of his five-year term, Guterres reflects on fast-changing situations in Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. "Conflicts are not getting better," he tells Elizabeth Dickinson.   Elizabeth Dickinson: You just got back from the Central African Republic (CAR), a country caught in the middle of the continent, amid conflicts in Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). What did you see?   António Guterres: CAR represents the most ignored and forgotten human tragedy in the world. It"s not the biggest human tragedy in the world -- DRC, for instance, presents a bigger tragedy -- but I believe the number of people aware of its existence is very small. CAR is a country of 4 million inhabitants, bigger than France and Belgium, in which you have about 200,000 people displaced. And you have a very complex governance problem. The truth is that half of the territory of the country is completely lawless, and it"s becoming an international problem. You have Central African Republicans that go to Cameroon to kill, hijack, and rob.   Elizabeth Dickinson: Many have cited improvements in the related conflicts in Darfur and Eastern Chad in recent months. Do you see that?   AG: It is still too early to fully say, but there are recent developments that represent a potential change for the better. First, Chad and Sudan have made an agreement that apparently more solid than past agreements [which have fallen apart]. They"ve agreed to fully normalize relations and establish common patrol forces along the border area. It is clear that there won"t be any support for the other country"s rebels, especially because the key rebel element in the Darfur situation that had been supported by Chad, the Justice and Equality Movement, has also made an agreement with Khartoum.   Some might argue that the key problem in Sudan is now the North-South relationship, because there will be a referendum [on southern independence in 2011], and the possible creation of a new state [South Sudan]. There might be a genuine interest in Khartoum to have a more manageable situation in Darfur.   Elizabeth Dickinson: Is your agency preparing any contingencies for the April elections in Sudan?   AG: Everyone should contribute [to a peaceful elections environment] so that things take place in a harmonious way. But of course it"s important to be prepared for whatever might occur. So today this is one of our key concerns. And for us, Southern Sudan has regained priority for our operations in Sudan.   Elizabeth Dickinson: Let"s move to the situation of Iraqi refugees and their slow return home. Are things progressing?   AG: There have been some returns from Syria and Jordan to Iraq. But we have been witnessing a trend for a core of people to remain [outside Iraq]. Our two key challenges now are: first, the preservation of asylum space and protection space in the surrounding countries, and second, to improve the functionality of the government"s support to returning people from inside and outside Iraq. We now have a presence in 14 districts in Iraq, but there is no way the international community or civil society can replace the need to have a functioning state to deal with these problems.   Elizabeth Dickinson: How about the situation in Afghanistan, given recent U.S. operations there?   AG: In Afghanistan, the key problem is still the security problem. We have control over only half the territory of the country. The number of returns to Afghanistan has dramatically decreased because obviously the conditions are not met for the easy reintegration of people.   There has been some new displacement because of military operations taking place. [Because of the security situation,] we have reduced the footprint of the international presence by 30 to 40 percent both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We had three staff members killed in Pakistan last year, so that has been a major concern for us. But we have to go on.   If you look at the questions you"ve asked, they identify what we could call an "arc of crisis" from South Asia -- Afghanistan, Pakistan -- going into Iraq, the Middle East -- and then back to Sudan and Chad. We could also easily mention the Horn of Africa: Somalia, Yemen. This is an "arc of crises" from which two-thirds of the world"s refugees originate. All these crises are becoming more and more interrelated. You see the links between Somalia and Yemen. If you look at Iraq, there is a clear connection between Iraq and what is happening the Middle East. The Palestinian question is invoked by many in the whole region.   Elizabeth Dickinson: If you compare todays situation to that of 2005, when you became high commissioner, what is the biggest difference?   AG: Conflicts are not getting better. Conflicts are getting more worrisome and more difficult to solve. For example, the number of people we helped to return last year decreased dramatically. The three biggest countries where return operations are taking place face complex security challenges: Afghanistan, Southern Sudan, and DRC. Conflicts aren"t getting better, the number of refugees and internally displaced people aren"t decreasing. That"s one point.   The second point is that in general the human rights agendas are losing ground to the national sovereignty agendas. That has many important implications.   The third -- and I don"t want to look too pessimistic -- is that we are witnessing new trends of forced displacement. A refugee in the traditional vision is someone who flees from country to another because of persecution or conflict. But what we"re witnessing now more and more is a certain number of mega-trends interacting with one another: population growth, urbanization, food insecurity, water scarcity, climate change, and conflict. More and more people are on the move for reasons that are sometimes difficult to differentiate. If a Somali crosses the Gulf of Aden, is it because of the conflict or because [there are no] jobs? Probably both.   Climate change also enhances conflict. If resources become scarce, people tend to fight for them. This is increasing the number of people on the move and the number of people forced to move. They"re not refugees, according to the legal definition, but they represent a major humanitarian and human rights challenge, as well as a major challenge for world politics. Visit the related web page
	View more stories