Opinion article: December 15, 2009

En route to Copenhagen, Kevin Rudd is stopping off in Tokyo, where he and Japanese PM Yukio Hatoyama will release a new report from the International Commission on Non-proliferation and Disarmament.

The timing of this report is extremely interesting as it intersects with the Copenhagen agenda, the crossover point being nuclear energy. The report outlines some practical steps such as cutting the number of nuclear warheads from 23,000 to 2000 by 2025 and other practical measures designed to make nuclear weapons “invisible” in national security policies.

Rudd has a key regional role to play in a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. If ever there was a time to push this agenda it is now, especially with the talks on stockpile reductions between President Obama and President Medvedev. However, like talk of reductions by the big polluters at Copenhagen, talk is not enough.

At latest estimates, the United States and Russia together hold about 22,400 nuclear weapons, which is about 96 per cent of all of the world’s nuclear weapons. The remaining stockpiles are held in just seven other nations. But while Rudd presents himself as a champion of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation on the international stage, the undercurrent to watch is to what extent he will be simultaneously boosting Australia’s credibility as chief uranium exporter to the world.

Australia seems to be working from the untenable position that nuclear energy can be separated from the nuclear weapons cycle. Australia doesn’t have the bomb, but we have uranium, the vital raw material we export to help enable bombs to be made. Ostensibly we only export for civilian purposes, but we do so to a number of nations which have nuclear weapons, including the US, France and China.

In May 2010, the world’s governments will meet again on the global issue of disarmament when they review the 40-year-old nuclear non-proliferation treaty at the United Nations in New York. Over four decades, signatories to the treaty have expanded to include nearly every nation. The conference will have an imperative to come up with actions, solutions and real ways forward for nuclear disarmament.

The non-proliferation treaty contains a commitment for the recognised nuclear powers to get rid of their nuclear weapons, and those who don’t have them to never acquire them. At the same time it gives permission to countries to develop “peaceful” nuclear energy. But the treaty doesn’t set out a clear roadmap for disarmament, and this has been a point of frustration in the negotiations for many years.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons and many other civil society groups around the world have been advocating for a new treaty to help focus government attention on eliminating nuclear weapons. A model Nuclear Weapons Convention has been in circulation for over a decade through the UN system, and is gaining popular political support from many governments. In September 2009 the notion of a convention attracted bi-partisan support by the Australian Parliament in a unanimous report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which examined all international treaties on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

The voices both from within and outside governments calling for a new convention or treaty that prohibits the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and outlines the concrete steps needed for complete disarmament continue to build. From Copenhagen in December 2009 to New York in May 2010, the global community is recognising that we must take responsibility for our futures and take action, back home and in the international arena. So while Rudd is in Tokyo this week mouthing worthy sentiments about nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, larger questions remain.

History demonstrates that the goal of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons will be much more likely in a world without nuclear power generation, because the material and capacity to produce nuclear power is intrinsically linked to the capacity to produce fissile material usable for nuclear weapons. North Korea and Iran provide the most timely points of reference. As former vice-president Al Gore has put it, “In the eight years I served in the White House, every weapons proliferation issue we faced was linked with a civilian reactor program.”

One of the main problems with the current regimes concerning the export of uranium is that the barriers in place between the so-called “peaceful” atom and the “military” atom are far too weak. Fissile materials are highly enriched uranium and plutonium the key ingredients in nuclear weapons and their control is critical to disarmament. Why should a body committed to nuclear disarmament, such as the International Commission on Non-proliferation and Disarmament stop at a 90 per cent reduction in weapons? Why not go to zero? The problem with going forward with a 90 per cent reduction target is that it can be seen to validate nuclear weapons as part of security doctrines for a small nuclear club.

James Norman is a communications adviser for ICAN and Dimity Hawkins is its campaign director.