Follow this blog:
RSS

‘No more bombs’ says anti-nuclear advocate

By | December 15, 2011, 3:51 AM PST

MELBOURNE — Australian Tim Wright is the Director for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a global grassroots movement for the total elimination of nuclear weapons through a legally binding, verifiable Nuclear Weapons Convention.

Wright, a 26-year-old law graduate, was employed by ICAN in New York in 2010 to implement its global strategy in the lead-up to, and during, the historic Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. He was instrumental in coordinating the first day of action for a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons, with more than 80 demonstrations taking place in 30 countries.

SmartPlanet catches up with Wright to get an update on the campaign.

SmartPlanet: Please tell us more about ICAN’s mission and who your supporters are.

Tim Wright: Our campaign’s central objective is a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Last year we helped to persuade more than 130 governments to call for negotiations to begin on such a treaty at the United Nations (UN). We expect work to start within the next few years. Most governments support a treaty to ban nuclear weapons — 145 out of 193 UN-represented countries — along with the Red Cross and UN Secretary-General. There are already treaties that outlaw other weapons that the international community has deemed inhumane such as chemical weapons, land mines, biological weapons and cluster bombs. At the height of the Cold War there were more than 70,000 nuclear weapons. Today there are about 20,000, but that’s still 20,000 too many.

SP: Earlier this month Australia begun a dialogue with India about the sale of uranium. If a deal goes through, what will the repercussions be?

TW: It will be a major blow to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Australia is one of the world’s biggest exporters of uranium — the raw material for generating nuclear power and producing nuclear weapons. Until this month, our government had a policy not to sell it to countries like India that aren’t part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Now Australia is essentially saying that the NPT doesn’t matter. This is a huge disappointment. If the deal goes ahead, it will help to fuel the arms race in South Asia.

SP: Last month ICAN reported that Australia has been secretly urging the U.S. Government to bolster its nuclear forces and make explicit its willingness to use nuclear weapons in our defence. How did your team uncover this information?

TW: We obtained previously top-secret documents, via the Freedom of Information Act, that showed that Australia had appeared before a congressional committee in the US in late 2009. At the same time, the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was advocating for nuclear disarmament at the United Nations, which is more than a little hypocritical.

SP: In May ICAN revealed that the Australian Government has $135 million invested in overseas companies which produce nuclear weapons. Can you elaborate further on this?

TW: These companies (based in the United Kingdom, France, United States and India) have been contracted by governments to build nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles including nuclear-capable missiles, bombers and submarines. And Australia invests in these companies through the Future Fund, the Government’s superannuation fund. Currently the Australian Government refuses to divest itself of these stocks even though they’ve divested from producers of landmines and cluster bombs. They say it’s legitimate for some countries to possess nuclear weapons. We of course reject that position, given the grave humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, regardless of who possesses them. However, the Greens political party have introduced legislation to ban the Future Fund from investing in nuclear weapons.

SP: How real is the threat of a nuclear war?

TW: Today there are more countries with nuclear weapons, and the likelihood of a nuclear confrontation is much greater than most people would think. The relationship between India and Pakistan, both nuclear weapon possessors, is highly volatile, and Israel and Iran have made provocative statements towards each other. Another issue is that there are 2,000 weapons in the U.S. and Russia that are maintained on hair-trigger alert –- ready to be used within minutes. In addition to the risk of deliberate use is the risk of accidental use. There have been dozens of documented accidents involving nuclear weapons.

SP: What can we do to get closer to achieving a global treaty on nuclear disarmament?

TW: We need to look at financial vested interests in maintaining nuclear weapons. Governments spend about $105 billion every year on maintaining and modernising their nuclear forces. Much of this goes to private enterprises. We need to discourage banks and other financial institutions from investing in companies that are involved in such work. Divestment is something that anyone can work on — encouraging people to invest their superannuation in funds that refuse to support nuclear weapons production. People can also take part in our Bombs No More community campaign, transforming images of nuclear bombs into something peaceful. We call it citizen disarmament.

SP: What’s next for ICAN?

TW: We hope that negotiations on the treaty to ban nuclear weapons will begin in the next few years. Most governments feel the time has come for this to happen. Early next year we plan to publish a list of 300 banks in 30 countries that provide loans to nuclear weapons producers. We are also about to employ four campaigners in the Middle East to help build support for a nuclear-free zone there.

Nuclear weapons facts:

  • The total destructive capacity of all nuclear weapons in the world is equivalent to 150,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs.
  • Four countries have done away with their nuclear weapons altogether — South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
  • 185 countries have made a legal undertaking never to acquire nuclear weapons.
  • Russia and the United States possess 95% of all nuclear weapons; the rest are owned by seven countries — the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Iran is suspected of seeking nuclear weapons.
  • Australia had a nuclear weapons program in 1960s but it abandoned that when the Non-Proliferation Treaty was being negotiated.
  • The United States spends $61 billion on its nuclear weapons every year.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Lieu Thi Pham

About Lieu Thi Pham

Lieu Thi Pham is a Melbourne correspondent for SmartPlanet.

Lieu Thi Pham

Lieu Thi Pham

Correspondent, Melbourne

Lieu Thi Pham is a freelance writer based in Melbourne, Australia. She has contributed to The Age, Associated Newspapers, Melbourne University Magazine, the Big Issue, Dazed and Confused, Indesign Group, Time Out, SOMA and Niche Media. She holds degrees from the University of Melbourne and RMIT University.

Follow her on Twitter.

Lieu Thi Pham

Lieu Thi Pham

Lieu Thi Pham does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
6
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Noble goal my friend
But impossible. A nuclear Iran, Russia's historic disregard of nuclear agreements (they have all but said they flaunted the rules established by the START treaties), radical Islamists threating to take over Egypt and Libya and destroy Israel along with a North Korean government that will never give up the bomb, how could the US properly defend itself from these threats? These advesaries would use a nuclear wepaon without hesitation, why would the US give up this advantage? Nuclear weapons actually keep Americans safer since no nation would dare attack the US for fear of repraisal.
Posted by Garbralter
15th Dec 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Nuclear technology a terrorist target. Unethical investing by superannuati
Garbralter doesn't get the whole picture. Neither the USA, Russia, even China, can continue to afford the financial and safety risks of having these weapons. They are an out-dated technology, but their mere presence and the nuclear reactors that supply the, form targets for terrorism. The terrorism danger is real, and far more likely to come from an extremist group than from any government, including Iran. Slow and faltering though it might be, international diplomacy and negotiation - these are the ways out of the war danger - not hostility and paranoia.

On another tack, relevant to this excellent article. ICAN is to be commended for looking into the financial side of the nuclear growth. I just found out that my superannuation fund, Health Super,invests in tobacco companies! How may Australians are in a super fund that invests in unethical companies, such as BHP Billiton, companies that invest in uranium mining and some even in even weapons making. It is very hard for an individual to ferret this out. Even so called "ethical" investments are involved in uranium mining.
Posted by ChristinaMac
15th Dec 2011
0 Votes
+ -
It's easier that you think
I agree with Garbralter, but my conclusions are quite different. With all the threats and geopolitical instability we have to face today, the only viable solution is a universal ban. The US, as 9/11 proved, is not safe or safer with nuclear weapons nor nuclear weapons have been used to respond to an attack which was considered as an "act of war". After reading the latest news on nuclear proliferation I would actually feel much safer with a nuclear free world. At the moment, with the all the nuclear wannabes around the world - Saudis apparently are the new kid on the block- I believe is more difficult to prevent the propagation of a weapon that has proved to have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Finally, I guess it's not that hard to achieve a global ban, it is a matter of political will. We have banned other weapons in the past - which were considered impossible to prohibit- nuclear weapons are not different, just more atrocious.
Posted by Valeinad
15th Dec 2011
0 Votes
+ -
HOW???
How do you propose to get the nuclear weapons away from Iran or North Korea or India or Pakistan? The bribes that Clinton offered to North Korea worked really well didn't they?
Posted by jimofil
16th Dec 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Worthless paper.
Glad you asked about Iran or North Korea or India or Pakistan jimofil. These people need a slap on head.

How did that world wide chemical weapons ban work out for the Kurds in Iraq?

Right now people should be worried about the instability in Syria since many inteligence agencies think Iraqs chemical weapons were shipped there prior to the 2003 invasion.
Posted by Hates Idiots
20th Dec 2011
0 Votes
+ -
World peace
Here's a small project trying to make a difference too: http://www.indiegogo.com/savetheVWbus
Posted by Hippiebusdude
4th Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!