Global Ethics


重要緊急_国連総会決議関する政府要請 by limitlesslife
October 25, 2016, 11:36 am
Filed under: 核廃絶

皆様

田巻@ピースデポです。複数のMLへの多重投稿をご容赦ください。

核兵器禁止条約交渉の2017年開始を求める国連総会決議案L41
“Taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations”
(オーストリア/メキシコ決議)の投票が目前(27日)に迫っています。

米国は、なりふり構わぬ外交攻勢(恫喝)で「反対ないしは棄権」の
多数派工作をしています。末尾のForeign Policy記事がその有様を
リアルに報じています。もちろん日本もターゲットにされています。

日本はどうせ「棄権」だろうなと思っていたのですが、川崎さんの話
だとどうも怪しい。外務省内部では「反対論」がひろがっているよう
です。きっと北米局の安保担当セクションの声が大きいのではないで
しょうか。

因みに、昨年の日本提案決議には唯一といってよい、ましな条項があり
ました。「16.加盟国が、核兵器のない世界を達成するために必要とさ
れる効果的措置のさらなる探究のための、適切な多国間協議の場に参画
するよう奨励する。」今年の決議案からはこれが削除されています。
オーストリア/メキシコ決議に「反対」しても、矛盾がないような仕込
をしているのではないでしょうか。小賢しい人たちです。

そこで、ピースデポはさきほど「反対するな」の要請書を外務省に提出
しました。一緒に声をあげましょう。外務省の「広聴」ページから外相
あてのメッセージをおくるのが簡単な方法だと思います。
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/comment/index.html

以下ピースデポの要請書です:
——————————————–
外務省
軍縮不拡散・科学部長 大使 相川一俊 様
軍縮不拡散・科学部審議官 大使 川崎方啓 様
軍縮会議日本政府代表部 特命全権大使 佐野利男 様
軍備管理軍縮課長 村上顯樹 様
㏄ 軍備管理軍縮課各位、ピースデポ:梅林、荒井、湯浅、山口

拝啓

平素より大変お世話になっております。特定非営利活動法人ピースデポ代表
の田巻でございます。

国連総会第1委員会における諸決議案の採決が10月27日に始まります。

私たちは、中でも決議案/L.41″Taking forward multilateral nuclear
disarmament negotiations”の帰趨、とりわけ日本の投票行動に強い関心
をもっています。ついては、外務大臣にあてて下記の申し入れを提出いた
します。ご査収の上、大臣に回付されますよう、よろしくお取り計らいくだ
さい。

外務大臣 岸田文雄 様

私たちは、核兵器を禁止し全面的廃棄に導く法的拘束力のある文書を交渉する
会議の2017年開催を求める、国連総会第1委員会に提出されている決議案/L.41
“Taking forward multilateral nucleardisarmament negotiations”が、幅広い
支持によって採択されることを願う立場から、日本の投票行動に強い関心を抱い
ています。

唯一の戦争被爆国として「非核兵器国と核兵器国に橋をかける」ことを旨とし
ている日本が、上記決議案に賛成票を投じることがもっとも望ましいことはいう
までもありません。仮に賛成がが難しくとも少なくとも「反対」票を投じないこ
とによって、日本が今後の条約交渉に有意義な貢献ができる道を残して頂きたい
と思います。
どうか、賢明なご判断をもって投票に臨むことを強く要望いたします。

——————————————————
Foreign Policy記事

Report <http://foreignpolicy.com/category/report/>
U.S. Seeks to Scupper Proposed Ban on Nuclear Arms <http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/21/u-s-seeks-to-scupper-proposed-ban-on-nuclear-arms/>
The Obama administration once sought a nuclear-free world. Now it’s fighting a ban on those very weapons.

By Colum Lynch <http://foreignpolicy.com/author/colum-lynch> Colum Lynch
is Foreign Policy’s award-winning U.N.-based senior diplomatic reporter.
Lynch previously wrote Foreign Policy’s Turtle Bay blog, for which he
was awarded the 2011 National Magazine Award for best reporting in
digital media.
*       October 21, 2016
*       colum.lynch <mailto:colum.lynch@foreignpolicy.com>
*       @columlynch <http://www.twitter.com/columlynch>

U.S. Seeks to Scupper Proposed Ban on Nuclear Arms

Almost eight years after President Barack Obama pledged in a landmark speech in Prague to seek “a world without nuclear weapons,” U.S. diplomats are mounting an aggressive campaign to head off a bid by non-nuclear states to ban such atomic arms.

American diplomats say the increasing belligerence of China and Russia — from the South China Sea to Syria to the Baltic — as well as the advancing pace of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, make it untenable for the United States and its allies to support such a far-reaching commitment to scrap their nukes.

“The security climate is not such that it is conducive to nuclear disarmament,” said a senior U.S. official, asserting that a treaty could undermine the nuclear deterrent in Europe and Asia.

“Until we have a relaxation of these tensions, and you’ve got a Russia that is willing to engage in further nuclear disarmament, it’s going to be difficult to make progress,” he said.

But supporters of the ban, including delegates from non-nuclear states and arms control experts, say that Washington is exaggerating the risks. They believe a ban would increase pressure on the world’s major nuclear powers to abide by their decades-long obligation to dismantle their nuclear weapons arsenals, the cornerstone of global efforts at limiting nuclear proliferation.

“I would argue this [nuclear weapons ban] is consistent with Obama’s vision of having a world without nuclear weapons,” Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, told Foreign Policy. “The legal prohibition of nuclear weapons is by no means a substitute for the disarmament actions that need to be taken, but it can contribute to further delegitimization of nuclear weapons.”

The U.S. diplomatic blitz against the proposed ban, which includes strong pressure on allies inside NATO and in East Asia, reflects mounting pessimism in the Obama administration about realizing the president’s vision of a nuclear-free world. Paradoxically, U.S. resistance means Washington is aligning with Beijing, Moscow, London, and Paris — nuclear powers that seek to preserve their atomic prerogatives and vow not to participate in negotiations on the proposed ban. What’s more, the heavy-handed U.S. push seems to be backfiring in some cases, driving non-nuclear countries to openly support banning nuclear weapons.

Austria, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa have spearheaded the drive for a resolution calling for the formal launch of negotiations on a nuclear ban in 2017. The U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote on the resolution as early as next week. Proponents expect it to pass easily; success, they say, would mean winning 120 votes in the 193-member assembly.

The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the foundation of nuclear disarmament efforts, struck a critical bargain: The five major nuclear powers would gradually dismantle their arsenals in exchange for a commitment from other governments to forgo such weapons. South Africa and Brazil, for example, developed nuclear weapons starting in the 1960s and 1970s but scuttled their programs.

Kimball said that non-nuclear states, including some of the more than 40 co-sponsors of the resolution, have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as the slow pace of nuclear disarmament and the recent efforts of nuclear powers to revitalize their nuclear arsenals.

The United States, for example, plans to spend as much as $1 trillion over 30 years to modernize its nuclear arsenal. China, Russia, and the United States are reportedly developing the next generation of nuclear weapons, or upgrading the technical capability of existing weapons.

The United States maintains that the NPT has been a major success. It has greatly limited the number of countries pursuing nuclear weapons even though it has not prevented outliers that never ratified the treaty — including Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea — from developing nuclear weapons programs. The NPT has driven generations of disarmament pacts that have eliminated 85 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. It also provided a legal basis to pressure Iran to place its nuclear program under international scrutiny to prevent Tehran from developing a secret nuclear weapons program.

That’s one reason Washington is lobbying so hard against the resolution. U.S. officials argue that the proposed ban would do nothing to further global disarmament because it wouldn’t include the nuclear powers.

“A treaty banning nuclear weapons will not lead to any further reductions because it will not include the states that possess nuclear weapons,” Robert Wood, the U.S. representative to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, told foreign delegates at the U.N. on Oct. 14. The United States, he pledged, will vote no on the resolution and refuse to participate in negotiations. “We urge all others to do the same,” he added.

Susie Snyder, a nuclear disarmament program manager at PAX, an advocacy group devoted to a nuclear free world, said Washington has faced setbacks in its diplomatic campaign. On Oct. 18, Wood pressed his case to African ambassadors behind closed doors at the U.N. to oppose the resolution. In the days following that meeting, four African countries — Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and Sierra Leone — agreed to co-sponsor the resolution, bringing the number of co-sponsors to 44, she said.

“The arguments used by the U.S. against a ban treaty are just scare-mongering and threats,” she told FP. “The really interesting thing is that their efforts are backfiring.”

Despite plentiful apparent support for the resolution, the United States and its nuclear peers hope to peel off enough support to persuade the sponsors to withdraw it, or at least slow the momentum for a ban.

Washington has pressured treaty allies, including Japan and South Korea and fellow NATO members Norway and the Netherlands, to vote against the resolution. U.S. diplomats say a yes vote by NATO members would be “incompatible” with their obligations as members of the alliance, according to a senior European diplomat. The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Washington has warned states considering voting in favor of the resolution that a ban could jeopardize defense arrangements with allies around the globe.

The diplomatic pressure has fallen heavily on the Netherlands, a stalwart NATO ally whose Parliament strongly supports a nuclear weapons ban. Europeans outside of NATO, like Sweden, are also facing pressure to vote no or at least abstain. But Sweden, which participates in a number of cooperation agreements with the alliance, has vowed to vote yes on the resolution. Norway and Japan, meanwhile, are said to be on the fence. But officials say Washington has gained ground with its close allies, including the vast majority of NATO members, which are expected to vote no.

“The Americans are tough,” the diplomat added. “They are saying, ‘You can’t do anything else but vote no, because you are part of an alliance. It would be completely incompatible and irresponsible to support that [ban]. It’s a threat to the core of our security doctrine.’”

Photo credit: ANDREW HARRER/Pool/Getty Images

Alice Slater

446 E 86 St

New York NY 10028

212-744-2005

646-238-9000(mobile)

www.wagingpeace.org <http://www.wagingpeace.org/>

We may now care for each Earthian individual at a sustainable billionaire’s level of affluence while living exclusively on less than 1 percent of our planet’s daily energy income from our cosmically designed nuclear reactor, the Sun, optimally located 92 million safe miles away from us.   Buckminster Fuller

From: abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mary Jane Williams meadowtrees@yahoo.com [abolition-caucus]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 8:04 PM
To: disarm@onlinegroups.net; ‘abolition caucus’; abolition-2000-new-york@googlegroups.com; ICAN_UNGA71@googlegroups.com; ufpj-disarm@yahoogroups.com; ‘medea benjamin’; ‘code pink’; nymetroprogressives@googlegroups.com; globenet@yahoogroups.com; ann Wright; samhusseini@gmail.com; Consortnew@aol.com; ‘Zak, Dan’
Subject: [abolition-caucus] Re: [disarm] U.S. Seeks to Scupper Proposed Ban on Nuclear Arms

Could you cut and paste this article, Alice?  Foreign Policy won’t let non-subscribers read it.

On Friday, October 21, 2016 7:47 PM, Alice Slater <alicejslater@gmail.com> wrote:

Read about US twisting arms at the UN to pressure nations not to support a
treaty to ban and prohibit nuclear weapons.  Hope our abolition friends in
other countries will shore up their governments to do the right thing and
vote for UN Resolution 41 calling for  negotiations in 2017 to ban the bomb!
For more info, see www.icanw.org  Alice

U.S. Seeks to Scupper Proposed Ban on Nuclear Arms –
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/21/u-s-seeks-to-scupper-proposed-ban-on-nuc
lear-arms/

Alice Slater

446 E 86 St

New York NY 10028

212-744-2005

646-238-9000(mobile)

www.wagingpeace.org <http://www.wagingpeace.org/>

We may now care for each Earthian individual at a sustainable billionaire’s
level of affluence while living exclusively on less than 1 percent of our
planet’s daily energy income from our cosmically designed nuclear reactor,
the Sun, optimally located 92 million safe miles away from us.  Buckminster
Fuller

――
View topic https://wilpf-us.onlinegroups.net/r/topic/4T559PRqpY4prqOWNX7QSz
Leave group mailto:disarm@onlinegroups.net?subject=Unsubscribe

Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net <https://onlinegroups.net/>

——————— Original Message Ends ——————–

************************************
田巻一彦 TAMAKI Kazuhiko
NPO法人ピースデポ 代表
tamaki@peacedepot.org
223-0062 横浜市港北区日吉本町1-30-27-4
日吉グリューネ1F
TEL: 045-563-5101 FAX :045-563-9907
http://www.peacedepot.org/
************************************

Report

U.S. Seeks to Scupper Proposed Ban on Nuclear Arms

The Obama administration once sought a nuclear-free world. Now it’s fighting a ban on those very weapons.

  • By Colum LynchColum Lynch is Foreign Policy’s award-winning U.N.-based senior diplomatic reporter. Lynch previously wrote Foreign Policy’s Turtle Bay blog, for which he was awarded the 2011 National Magazine Award for best reporting in digital media.
  • October 21, 2016
  • colum.lynch
  • @columlynch

Almost eight years after President Barack Obama pledged in a landmark speech in Prague to seek “a world without nuclear weapons,” U.S. diplomats are mounting an aggressive campaign to head off a bid by non-nuclear states to ban such atomic arms.

American diplomats say the increasing belligerence of China and Russia — from the South China Sea to Syria to the Baltic — as well as the advancing pace of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, make it untenable for the United States and its allies to support such a far-reaching commitment to scrap their nukes.

“The security climate is not such that it is conducive to nuclear disarmament,” said a senior U.S. official, asserting that a treaty could undermine the nuclear deterrent in Europe and Asia.

“Until we have a relaxation of these tensions, and you’ve got a Russia that is willing to engage in further nuclear disarmament, it’s going to be difficult to make progress,” he said.

But supporters of the ban, including delegates from non-nuclear states and arms control experts, say that Washington is exaggerating the risks. They believe a ban would increase pressure on the world’s major nuclear powers to abide by their decades-long obligation to dismantle their nuclear weapons arsenals, the cornerstone of global efforts at limiting nuclear proliferation.

“I would argue this [nuclear weapons ban] is consistent with Obama’s vision of having a world without nuclear weapons,” Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, told Foreign Policy. “The legal prohibition of nuclear weapons is by no means a substitute for the disarmament actions that need to be taken, but it can contribute to further delegitimization of nuclear weapons.”

The U.S. diplomatic blitz against the proposed ban, which includes strong pressure on allies inside NATO and in East Asia, reflects mounting pessimism in the Obama administration about realizing the president’s vision of a nuclear-free world. Paradoxically, U.S. resistance means Washington is aligning with Beijing, Moscow, London, and Paris — nuclear powers that seek to preserve their atomic prerogatives and vow not to participate in negotiations on the proposed ban. What’s more, the heavy-handed U.S. push seems to be backfiring in some cases, driving non-nuclear countries to openly support banning nuclear weapons.

Austria, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa have spearheaded the drive for a resolution calling for the formal launch of negotiations on a nuclear ban in 2017. The U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote on the resolution as early as next week. Proponents expect it to pass easily; success, they say, would mean winning 120 votes in the 193-member assembly.

The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the foundation of nuclear disarmament efforts, struck a critical bargain: The five major nuclear powers would gradually dismantle their arsenals in exchange for a commitment from other governments to forgo such weapons. South Africa and Brazil, for example, developed nuclear weapons starting in the 1960s and 1970s but scuttled their programs.

Kimball said that non-nuclear states, including some of the more than 40 co-sponsors of the resolution, have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as the slow pace of nuclear disarmament and the recent efforts of nuclear powers to revitalize their nuclear arsenals.

The United States, for example, plans to spend as much as $1 trillion over 30 years to modernize its nuclear arsenal. China, Russia, and the United States are reportedly developing the next generation of nuclear weapons, or upgrading the technical capability of existing weapons.

The United States maintains that the NPT has been a major success. It has greatly limited the number of countries pursuing nuclear weapons even though it has not prevented outliers that never ratified the treaty — including Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea — from developing nuclear weapons programs. The NPT has driven generations of disarmament pacts that have eliminated 85 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. It also provided a legal basis to pressure Iran to place its nuclear program under international scrutiny to prevent Tehran from developing a secret nuclear weapons program.

That’s one reason Washington is lobbying so hard against the resolution. U.S. officials argue that the proposed ban would do nothing to further global disarmament because it wouldn’t include the nuclear powers.

“A treaty banning nuclear weapons will not lead to any further reductions because it will not include the states that possess nuclear weapons,” Robert Wood, the U.S. representative to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, told foreign delegates at the U.N. on Oct. 14. The United States, he pledged, will vote no on the resolution and refuse to participate in negotiations. “We urge all others to do the same,” he added.

Susie Snyder, a nuclear disarmament program manager at PAX, an advocacy group devoted to a nuclear free world, said Washington has faced setbacks in its diplomatic campaign. On Oct. 18, Wood pressed his case to African ambassadors behind closed doors at the U.N. to oppose the resolution. In the days following that meeting, four African countries — Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and Sierra Leone — agreed to co-sponsor the resolution, bringing the number of co-sponsors to 44, she said.

“The arguments used by the U.S. against a ban treaty are just scare-mongering and threats,” she told FP. “The really interesting thing is that their efforts are backfiring.”

Despite plentiful apparent support for the resolution, the United States and its nuclear peers hope to peel off enough support to persuade the sponsors to withdraw it, or at least slow the momentum for a ban.

Washington has pressured treaty allies, including Japan and South Korea and fellow NATO members Norway and the Netherlands, to vote against the resolution. U.S. diplomats say a yes vote by NATO members would be “incompatible” with their obligations as members of the alliance, according to a senior European diplomat. The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Washington has warned states considering voting in favor of the resolution that a ban could jeopardize defense arrangements with allies around the globe.

The diplomatic pressure has fallen heavily on the Netherlands, a stalwart NATO ally whose Parliament strongly supports a nuclear weapons ban. Europeans outside of NATO, like Sweden, are also facing pressure to vote no or at least abstain. But Sweden, which participates in a number of cooperation agreements with the alliance, has vowed to vote yes on the resolution. Norway and Japan, meanwhile, are said to be on the fence. But officials say Washington has gained ground with its close allies, including the vast majority of NATO members, which are expected to vote no.

“The Americans are tough,” the diplomat added. “They are saying, ‘You can’t do anything else but vote no, because you are part of an alliance. It would be completely incompatible and irresponsible to support that [ban]. It’s a threat to the core of our security doctrine.’”

Photo credit: ANDREW HARRER/Pool/Getty Images

 

 

Alice Slater

446 E 86 St

New York NY 10028

212-744-2005

646-238-9000(mobile)

www.wagingpeace.org

 

We may now care for each Earthian individual at a sustainable billionaire’s level of affluence while living exclusively on less than 1 percent of our planet’s daily energy income from our cosmically designed nuclear reactor, the Sun, optimally located 92 million safe miles away from us.   Buckminster Fuller

 

 

 

 

From: abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mary Jane Williams meadowtrees@yahoo.com [abolition-caucus]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 8:04 PM
To: disarm@onlinegroups.net; ‘abolition caucus’; abolition-2000-new-york@googlegroups.com; ICAN_UNGA71@googlegroups.com; ufpj-disarm@yahoogroups.com; ‘medea benjamin’; ‘code pink’; nymetroprogressives@googlegroups.com; globenet@yahoogroups.com; ann Wright; samhusseini@gmail.com; Consortnew@aol.com; ‘Zak, Dan’
Subject: [abolition-caucus] Re: [disarm] U.S. Seeks to Scupper Proposed Ban on Nuclear Arms

 

 

Could you cut and paste this article, Alice?  Foreign Policy won’t let non-subscribers read it.

 

On Friday, October 21, 2016 7:47 PM, Alice Slater <alicejslater@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Read about US twisting arms at the UN to pressure nations not to support a
treaty to ban and prohibit nuclear weapons.  Hope our abolition friends in
other countries will shore up their governments to do the right thing and
vote for UN Resolution 41 calling for  negotiations in 2017 to ban the bomb!
For more info, see www.icanw.org  Alice

U.S. Seeks to Scupper Proposed Ban on Nuclear Arms –
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/21/u-s-seeks-to-scupper-proposed-ban-on-nuc
lear-arms/

Alice Slater

446 E 86 St

New York NY 10028

212-744-2005

646-238-9000(mobile)

www.wagingpeace.org <http://www.wagingpeace.org/>

We may now care for each Earthian individual at a sustainable billionaire’s
level of affluence while living exclusively on less than 1 percent of our
planet’s daily energy income from our cosmically designed nuclear reactor,
the Sun, optimally located 92 million safe miles away from us.  Buckminster
Fuller

――
View topic https://wilpf-us.onlinegroups.net/r/topic/4T559PRqpY4prqOWNX7QSz
Leave group mailto:disarm@onlinegroups.net?subject=Unsubscribe

Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net


Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: