Arctic Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Now is the time to begin

1. Adele Buckley Canadian Pugwash www.pugwashgroup.ca 59th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs Berlin, 2011 Arctic Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Now is the time to begin

2. The ArcticOverlap of the two great security threats of the 21st century – CLIMATE CHANGE & NUCLEAR WEAPONS

3. Civilization-threatening problems • Climate Change & Nuclear Weapons • Exceptional opportunities created for conflict or cooperation • The climate-change-induced “meltdown” of the Arctic • Great upheavals in the way-of-life, business and international governance of the Arctic • A window of opportunity to begin steps toward a NUCLEAR FREE ARCTIC

4. Climate Change <<->> Polar Ice Melts & Arctic climate affects the global climate • The current risk of conflict is low; the global future is potentially turbulent – conflict is possible – now is the time to begin to negotiate a nuclear free Arctic • In the ‘new’ Arctic: Many national, bilateral, multilateral agreements must be made; now is the time to gain acceptance for a future nuclear free Arctic

5. THE UNITED NATIONS & Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones

6. United Nations Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon’s 5-Point Proposal on Nuclear Disarmament 1. Pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the NPT – on nuclear disarmament, *either through a new nuclear-weapons convention or through a framework of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification. 2. …… 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…... 5. …… http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sgsm11881.doc.htm * [emphasis added]

7. Principles that the United Nations* has set for Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones • 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

8. Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, [Treaty, Ratification by zonal states , Protocols by all NW states] • Antarctica [1959, 1961, all] • Tlatelolco [1967, 1969, all] • Rarotonga* [1985,1986] • Bangkok* [1995, 1997] • Pelindaba* [1996,2009] • Semipalatinsk [2006,2009] • Mongolia, [2000,2000,all] * Consultations with NWS ongoing

9. 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.

10. United Nations First Committeemeeting Oct 11 – Nov 2, 2010 A 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.”

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

12. ARCTIC NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE

13. Historical perspective on Arctic NWFZ • First proposal for the 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” 1987 [not including the Arctic Ocean]

14. TOOLS FOR GOVERNANCE

15. Circumpolar nations: *Ice-capable conflict and surveillance vesselsRussia, Norway, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Canada, Sweden/Finland, Norway [clockwise]*[Rob Huebert, Univ. of Calgary, Arctic Security Challenges and Issues, Ottawa 01/28/10]

16. Needed – multilateral collaboration EXAMPLES TREATY AGREEMENTS Search & Rescue Agreement, May 2011 – 8 circumpolar countries: Arctic to have search & rescue areas , coordinated multilateral management, retaining legal responsibility of each nation for its own territory Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) Treaty, 2001 UNDER DISCUSSION • Environmental problems, e.g. oil spill • Suppression of particulate matter [exacerbates absorption of sunlight, and increased warming] • Regulation and surveillance of shipping lanes • Fisheries regulation >>>shows intent to avoid militarization _______________________________________________________ GOVERNANCE 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 [report on remarks by (Canadian )Brigadier-General John Collin, Nov. 9, 2010]

17. Arctic Council: now & future • The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental circumpolar forum collaborating on • Arctic environmental protection and sustainable development • In addition to circumpolar nations as members: • Indigenous peoples are permanent participants • Observers from 6 countries; and many NGOs • PAST – 1988, an Arctic arms control conference was convened in Canada, leading to formation of the Arctic Council in 1996, with Canada as the first chair. U.S. joined on condition that “security” was out • FUTURE - strengthen Arctic Council; add peace and security to its mandate; restore Ambassadors

18. International CollaborationTOOLS for GOVERNANCE • Arctic Council: Its mandate must enlarge, including security • A Scientific Committee on Arctic Research (as in the Antarctic) • UNCLOS rules on ocean area sovereignty, using seabed data • Economic strategies: sufficient funding must be allocated by governments; multinationals that benefit from Arctic resources or transpolar shipping must directly contribute funds • Agreements / Treaties: regional, national, pan-Arctic, bilateral, multilateral, international. The idea of Arctic NWFZ to be accepted, starting now • Develop new means of governance • Set a global example for innovations in governance

19. SETTING OUT ON THE PATH TO AN ARCTIC NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE-ZONE

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

21. Nuclear-armed submarines – a nuclear deterrence strategy dating from the Cold War[Michael Wallace, Canadian Pugwash/Science for Peace Forum, November, 2010] • US and RF attack submarines no longer carry NW (1991 agmt) • SSBN subs rely on stealth; BUT NOTE rapidly diminishing usefulness of ice-free Arctic areas; few patrol missions recently; now there are serious ingress & egress problems • The Russian Northern Fleet, particularly the SSBN class, is likely to have its main future in the Pacific; Chinese SSBN fleet will rival size of Russian fleet by 2020. Arctic NWFZ could hasten removal of Russian submarines from the Arctic

22. MEET THE CHALLENGES start the Arctic NWFZ treaty negotiations now • Flexibility in negotiation is the key, since each 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 • There is need for comprehensive assistance to the Arctic peoples – indigenous and non-indigenous – for preservation of the environment, adaptation to climate change, security from conflict,. NWFZ has to be present [but in the background, for now.] • Arctic peoples must be at the negotiating table. • NNWS in the Arctic have already fulfilled important criteria for NWFZ

23. Choices for starting pathways leading towards an Arctic NWFZ • Single state enacts its own legislation for NWFZ, or • One or more NNWS act together: NWFZ for one or more of: • Land north of Arctic Circle • Entire land and sea territory, for or more NNWS • Surface waters of some countries acting together • Territorial waters, including sub-surface • Submarines could be allowed “innocent transit”, but not patrol • Air space • UN First Committee gathers support, then UN General Assembly resolution is introduced by Arctic non-nuclear weapon states • Later, U.S. and Russia, observing the regional and global pressure, might accept elimination of patrolling by SSBN class submarines in the Arctic and join the Arctic NWFZ

24. Arctic NWFZ should be on the agenda of all circumpolar nations[Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland] POTENTIAL CHAMPIONS • Government of Canada • Governments of circumpolar nations • Arctic Council • Nordic Council • Civil society • PNND (Canada) and PNND international • United Nations First Committee [leading to widely supported resolution at UNGA]

25. SUPPORTERS OF AN ARCTIC NUCLEAR- WEAPON-FREE ZONE

26. 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 • Several members: Parliament of Canada • Several members of the Parliament of Denmark • Interaction Council (former Prime Ministers and world leaders) – meetings of April 2010 and May 2011 • Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation (Canada) • World Future Council (United Kingdom) • Nordic Council –Nordic NWFZ proposal submitted • Canadian peace groups CPG Statement: Protect the Arctic with an Arctic Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

27. Arctic NWFZ Campaign • GOAL: Keep the Arctic NWFZ proposal at the forefront in interaction with Arctic NNWS and all NWS 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

28. Connecting: ANWFZ as a support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention NWC • NWC is an international, universal, legal ban of nuclear weapons*, supported by credible verification; NWC is also effectively achieved by a framework of mutually reinforcing agreements • Arctic NWFZ creates a regional Nuclear Weapons Convention • Arctic NWFZ helps to build co-operative security mechanisms that facilitate a global nuclear-weapon-free regime >>> “lessons-learned” could be utilized • *The Model NWC, 2007, sets 5 year periods; NW abolished by Year 15

29. THE ACTION LIST

30. ACTION:- for Civil Society groups, educators, indigenous groups, individuals • Visit MPs and write to the Governments in support of Arctic NWFZ • Citizens must press Arctic circumpolar nations to present a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly in support of a NWFZ for the Arctic • In Canadian Parliament – Restore Arctic NWFZ initiatives [died when an election was called] • MP Bill Siksay’s motion on Arctic nuclear-weapon-free zone • MP Larry Bagnell’s private member’s bill on a Canadian NWFZ an • [from motions in the Canadian Senate and House of Commons, passed on June, 2010 and Dec, 2010]“ …encourage the Government of Canada … to engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention • Throughout the circumpolar region, press governments to uphold a “northern vision” of peace • VOLUNTEER YOUR TIME TO THE ARCTIC NWFZ CAMPAIGN

31. 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 Dallaire, Senate of Canada

32. Contact information • Canadian Pugwash Arctic Security WG Adele Buckley adele-buckley@rogers.com www.arcticnwfz.cawww.pugwashgroup.ca • Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation www.wdgf.orggordonfn@gordonfn.org Subscribe to: Arctic NWFZ discussion group (arctic-nuclear-weapon-free@googlegroups.com) Report: Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons A Task Long Overdue(M. Wallace & S. Staples)

34. I N U I T   C I R C U M P O L A R   C O N F E R E N C E      Resolution on a Nuclear Free Zone in the Arctic  [adopted] 1983 ………….THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Inuit Circumpolar  Conference emphatically restates its nuclear position:   • 1.  that the arctic and sub-arctic be used for purposes that are peaceful and environmentally safe; • 2.  that there shall be no nuclear testing or nuclear devices in the arctic or sub-arctic; • 3.  that there shall be no nuclear dump-sites in the arctic or sub-arctic; • 4.  that exploration and exploitation of uranium, thorium, lithium or other materials related to the nuclear industry in our homeland be prohibited …………….     

35. 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”

36. Northern Strategy for Canada • Canadian government stance: “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

37. [APPENDIX] • NWFZM/CONF.2010/1 • Second Conference of States Parties • and Signatories of Treaties that • Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones • and Mongolia • 5 May 2010 • Original: English • 10-34972 (E) 070510 • *1034972* • New York, 30 April 2010 • Outcome Document • Second Conference of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones • and Mongolia • New York, 30 April 2010 • On the occasion of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on • Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons we, the States parties and signatories to the • Treaties of Tlatelolco (1967), Rarotonga (1985), Bangkok (1995), Pelindaba (1996) • and Central Asia (2006) which have established nuclear-weapon-free zones, as well • as Mongolia — a nuclear-weapon-free State — have met for the purpose of • strengthening the nuclear-weapon-free zones regimes and contributing to the nuclear • disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation process, and in particular to analyse • ways of cooperating that can promote the achievement of the universal goal of a • nuclear-weapon-free world. • Bearing this in mind: • 1. We reaffirm ………………

38. 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 Nuclear Weapon 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-free zones 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 zones established in Antarctica, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Seabed, Outer Space, the South Pacific, Africa, South-East Asia, Mongolia and Central Asia; 3. Call upon all States, in particular the nuclear-weapon States, to fully respect existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, including to ratify the respective protocols and remove reservations to current ratifications, in order to guarantee the zones remain free of nuclear weapons and the threat of their use; 4. Support the exploration of possibilities for establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East, North-East Asia, the Arctic and Central Europe, and call upon Governments in these regions to undertake multilateral dialogue, deliberations and negotiations to establish such zones;

39. ANNEX (Cont’d) 5. Commend States — including Austria, Mongolia and New Zealand — which have taken national legislative measures to prohibit nuclear weapons, and encourage other national legislatures to adopt similar measures; 6. Believe that technical and financial resources dedicated to producing and deploying nuclear weapons — including most of the $100 billion global nuclearweapons budget — should be converted for civilian purposes, including meeting United Nations Millennium Development Goals and combating climate change; 7. Support actions, whether by Governments or private investors, to divest from corporations involved in the manufacture and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, and commend the Governments of New Zealand and Norway and cities that have undertaken such divestment actions; 8. Commend the Governments in the regional nuclear-weapon-free zones for joining together in the inaugural Conference of States Parties and Signatories of Treaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones, in Mexico in 2005 and again at the United Nations in 2010, and encourage the States parties to enhance their communication and collaboration and to establish institutional arrangements to facilitate this; 9. Encourage States parties to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties to expand their collaboration in strengthening existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, supporting the establishment of additional zones, including single-State nuclear-weapon-free zones, and advancing the achievement of a nuclear-weapons-free world, and commend the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean for their leadership in this area;

40. ANNEX (Cont’d) 10. Encourage States which host foreign nuclear weapons to exercise their sovereign right to have such weapons withdrawn, enabling them to establish or join nuclear-weapon-free zones; 11. Commend United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his five-point plan for nuclear disarmament, which supports nuclear-weapon-free zones and proposes a number of other measures, including a call upon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to undertake negotiations on a nuclear-weapons convention or a package of agreements; 12. Call on the 2010 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference to agree to a preparatory process for a nuclear-weapons convention that would pave the way for negotiations while simultaneously advancing technical, political and legal aspects such as verification, confidence building and diminishing the role of nuclear weapons; 13. Note that, as work proceeds to negotiate new measures leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects, it is vital that already-agreed measures be brought into force and implemented. Thus, commend the nuclear-weapon-free-zone States on 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 and regional nuclear-weapon-free zones, and in collaborating with Governments for the achievement of a nuclear-weapons-free world.