DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Energy, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament: Briefing Notes for the 2010 NPT Review Conference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Energy, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament: Briefing Notes for the 2010 NPT Review Conference Nuclear Energy, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament: Briefing Notes for the 2010 NPT Review Conference François Carrel-Billiard and Christine Wing APRIL 2010 INTERNATIONAL PEACE INSTITUTE Cover Photo: Atoms for Peace, 1957 ABOUT THE AUTHORS US Postage Stamp. © Ray Roper/Istockphoto. FRANÇOIS CARREL-BILLIARD is Managing Director of the International Peace Institute (IPI) and also leads a project The views expressed in this paper on weapons of mass destruction within IPI's flagship represent those of the authors and Coping with Crisis program. Prior to joining IPI in 2007, he not necessarily those of roundtable served in Paris as an adviser to the French Foreign Minister, participants, nor those of IPI. IPI welcomes consideration of a wide and as a Deputy Director for Strategic Affairs at the range of perspectives in the pursuit Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Previously, Mr. Carrel-Billiard of a well-informed debate on critical was posted in Moscow, New York, and Brussels. He policies and issues in international graduated from the École Nationale d'Administration in affairs. Paris, and he also holds a law degree from the Université Paris II and an MA from the Institut d' Études Politiques de IPI Publications Adam Lupel, Editor Paris. Ellie B. Hearne, Publications Officer CHRISTINE WING is Senior Research Fellow at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University and a Suggested Citation François Carrel-Billiard and Christine Senior Adviser to IPI. She has worked on disarmament and Wing, “Nuclear Energy, Nonpro- nonproliferation issues since the early 1980s, including as a liferation, and Disarmament: program officer at the Ford Foundation, and as a coordi - Briefing Notes for the 2010 NPT nator of the Disarmament Program at the American Review Conference,” New York: Friends Service Committee. She holds a PhD in interna - International Peace Institute, April tional security studies from the Woodrow Wilson School at 2010. Princeton University. © by International Peace Institute, 2010 All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank for their input and insight www.ipinst.org the participants in the series of roundtable meetings on NPT issues held at IPI between June 2009 and March 2010: Witjaksono Adji, Hossam Aly, Liseth Ancidey, Nosizwe Lise Baqwa, Dainius Baublys, Serge Bavaud, Mohammed Belaoura, Rodolfo Benítez Versón, Mónica Bolaños-Pérez, Siriporn Chaimongkol, Xavier Chatel, Carlos Perez, Axel Cruau, Ine Declerck, Swen Dornig, Mohamed Elghitany, Michael Gordon, Miguel Graça, Torbjørn Graff Hugo, María Perla Flores, Raphael Hermoso, Kyra Hild, Anna Hjartardottir, Jim Kelly, Daniel Krull, Niclas Kvarnström, Florian Laudi, Boniface Lezona, Thomas Markram, Maria Josefina Martinez Gramuglia, William Menold, Enrique Ochoa, Johann Paschalis, Tetyana Pokhval'ona, Pia Poroli, John Erik Prydz, Febrian Ruddyard, Randy Rydell, Monica Sánchez, Gustavo Senechal, Daniel Simanjuntak, Albert Sitnikov, Daniel Shepherd, Michael Spies, Lachezara Stoeva, Aidas Sunelaitis, Jonathan Tow, Roland Tricot, Chantale Walker, Xu Jian, Youn Jong Kwon, Gustavo Zlauvinen, and Sarah de Zoeten. IPI owes a debt of gratitude to all of its donors. For this project, in particular, IPI is grateful to the governments of Finland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. CONTENTS Foreword, Edward C. Luck . iii Acronyms . v Introduction . 1 Nuclear Power and the NPT . 4 BACKGROUND: THE ANTICIPATED EXPANSION IN NUCLEAR POWER PROJECTED GROWTH IN NUCLEAR POWER AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR PROLIFERATION NUCLEAR POWER AND THE NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle . 8 THE ISSUE BACKGROUND: THE SUPPLY OF NUCLEAR FUEL PROPOSALS FOR FUEL ASSURANCES THE SITUATION TODAY FUEL ASSURANCES AND THE NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE Nuclear Disarmament . 13 STATE OF PLAY WHAT ARE THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES? WHAT ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR, AND OBSTACLES TO, PROGRESS? DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT FRAMEWORKS? DISARMAMENT AND THE NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones . 24 BACKGROUND KEY ISSUES NWFZ s AND THE NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE North Korea and the NPT . 28 EARLY PROGRAM HISTORY IAEA INSPECTIONS (1992-1994) THE AGREED FRAMEWORK (1994-2002) THE SIX-PARTY TALKS (SINCE 2003) THE DPRK AND THE NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE Iran and the NPT . 33 DEVELOPMENT OF A CLANDESTINE NUCLEAR PROGRAM (MID-1980 s-2002) INITIAL ATTEMPTS TO FIND A NEGOTIATED SOLUTION (2003-2006) THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE DUAL-TRACK APPROACH (SINCE 2006) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IRAN AND THE NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE Annexes . 40 ANNEX I: TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ANNEX II: PAST REVIEW CONFERENCE DOCUMENTS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ANNEX III: TABLES OF NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONES iii Foreword Four decades ago, on March 5, 1970, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force. As foreshadowed in Article VIII, paragraph 3, the states party to the treaty have met every five years “to review the operations of the Treaty with a view to assuring that the purposes of the Preamble and the provisions of the Treaty are being realized.” These periodic check-ups, however, have been anything but routine. Sometimes it has been impossible to agree on an agenda, much less to produce agreed results. Yet, in what has become a classic demonstration of the power of faith over experience, the 189 states party to the treaty will gather in May 2010 for the eighth time—this round at United Nations headquarters in New York City—to take stock and to look ahead with some combination of apprehension and modest expectation. Though one of the world’s more widely subscribed security conventions, the NPT has also proved to be one of the more controversial. Its provisions define the core bargain between those few countries that have long admitted to having nuclear weapons and the many that have declared that they have no intention of acquiring them. All have pledged not to help others to do so. On the one hand, it is an inherently asymmetrical bargain among states with diverse interests and capacities. Different capitals are bound to have divergent perceptions of who is or is not living up to their end of the bargain, or of priorities, timing, and trade-offs among its planks. On the other hand, only one state party—North Korea—has ever sought to exercise its right of withdrawal under the provisions of Article X, paragraph 1, of the treaty. This record suggests that the treaty regime, whatever its shortcomings, has served the common security interests of its state parties, whether large or small, nuclear or non-nuclear, well enough over four quite turbulent decades to persuade them to keep sustaining the enterprise. Each of the eight Review Conferences, according to contemporary pundits, has come at a pivotal moment in the evolution of efforts to curb both horizontal and vertical proliferation. Each time, the stakes were high, the threats of further proliferation all too real. Hyperbole aside, the commentators were right each time to stress the fragility of the NPT regime, as it has had a contested existence for much of its lifetime. It has faced dissension within its ranks and acute challenges from three hold-outs—India, Israel, and Pakistan—that have refused to join precisely because they wanted to be free to acquire nuclear weapons if they deemed that their security required it. There is, moreover, the ongoing struggle to try to keep North Korea within the NPT regime and Iran without nuclear weapons. This time, the stakes—whether measured in terms of downside risk or upside potential—are even higher than usual. The danger of nonstate actors, such as transnational criminal or terrorist networks, gaining possession of nuclear materials or technology has moved from a back burner to a front burner in terms of high-level political attention. President Barack Obama’s convening of the first Nuclear Security Summit in April 2010, a month before the NPT review, testified to the urgent nexus among issues of nuclear security, safety, disarmament, and proliferation. The pledges made there by a number of countries to secure nuclear facilities and reduce stockpiles of nuclear materials demonstrated the potential of such broad-based summits for spurring parallel action, as well as setting the bar higher for the Review Conference. The conclusion of the long-awaited Russian-American New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), also in the month preceding the Review Conference, underscored the need to maintain momentum on both sides of the NPT bargain. Though these steps appear modest compared to the magnitude of the nuclear challenge, they may encourage the states party to the treaty to look forward instead of backward at the review and to go beyond the kind of small thinking and defensive finger-pointing that has too often dominated these events in the past. The review comes, as well, at a time when environmental, financial, and political factors are propelling a fresh look at civilian nuclear power as a source of energy and economic development in many places. Though talk of a “nuclear renaissance” may be overblown, some delegates are sure to remind others of their Article IV obliga - tion “to facilitate…the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.” The proliferation of power and research reactors, however, iv is bound to compound concerns about its implications for less benign forms of proliferation, as well as for security and safety. These concerns, in turn, have spurred further consideration of ways to bolster the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards regime, and, further down the road, of the possibility of developing multilateral arrangements for handling the nuclear-fuel cycle. As always, global aspirations and standards can run into speed bumps or even detours when applied to the regions with the most acute problems and the least promising politics. The declaration of a nuclear-weapon-free zone, for instance, has served as a confidence-building measure in many regions, but not yet in the Middle East, where, like so many other things, it remains a bone of contention.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms
    ATOMS PEACE WAR Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G. Hewlett and lack M. Roll With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy—United States—History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government-1953-1961. I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. III. Series. QC792. 7. H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONTENTS List of Illustrations vii List of Figures and Tables ix Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxvii 1. A Secret Mission 1 2. The Eisenhower Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73 5. The Political Arena 113 6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12.
    [Show full text]
  • The United Kingdom's Defence Nuclear Weapons Programme
    Publications and Reports The United Kingdom's Defence Nuclear Weapons Programme A Summary Report by The Ministry of Defence on the Role of Historical Accounting for Fissile Material in the Nuclear Disarmament Process, and on Plutonium for the United Kingdom's Defence Nuclear Programme Introduction 1. The Government is committed to transparency and openness about the defence nuclear programme when compatible with continuing national security requirements and the United Kingdom’s international obligations under Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Government is also committed to work towards the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons As the Strategic Defence Review stated, eliminating nuclear weapons will require States which have had nuclear programmes outside international safeguards to account for the fissile material that they have produced. This contributes to the process of nuclear disarmament by developing confidence that as States reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear weapons, they have not retained concealed stocks of fissile material outside international supervision with which to construct clandestine nuclear weapons. Such accounting was crucial to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s initial verification of the comprehensive safeguards agreement signed by South Africa when it eliminated its nuclear weapons programme and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon State. The United States has produced a comprehensive report on its production of plutonium for defence purposes, and is working on a similar study on its production of High Enriched Uranium. 2. It is important not to overestimate the contribution such historical accounting can make to the verification of the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic People's Republic of Korea
    ; Democratic People's Republic ofKorea PERMANENT MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS 820 Second Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, N.V: 1001.7 Tel: (212) 972-3105/3106 Fax: (212) 972-3154 Press Release Please Check against Delivery STATEMENT BY H.E. Mr. PAKKIL YON VICE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA AT THE HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT OF THE 68th UN GENERALASSEMBLY NEW YORK, 26 SEPTEMBER 2013 Mr. President, First ofall, on behalf ofthe delegation ofthe Democratic People's Republic ofKorea (DPRK), I would like to congratulate you for your assumption of the important duty as the president of this session. Furthermore, I am confident that under your able leadership, this meeting will be a significant occasion in the United Nation's endeavors for nuclear disarmament. Mr. President, Prevention of nuclear arms race and realization of the world free from nuclear weapons through nuclear disarmament is becoming a pressing task in ensuring peace and security of the world. 45 years ago, nuclear powers made a commitment to nuclear disarmament through the Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) and ~hey put obligations on non-nuclear weapon states to use atomic power for peaceful purposes only. These commitments for nuclear disarmament were reconfirmed in 1995 when the NPT was extended for indefinite period without any amendments and through "Thirteen Action Plan for Nuclear Disarmament" which was taken at the NPT Review Conference in 2000. However, notwithstanding this, there is a tendency in which. priority is being given to non-proliferation, rather than nuclear disarmament. Under .the pretext of nuclear disarmament, development of new types of nuclear weapons of enhanced capability are constantly pushed ahead and furthermore maneuvers to conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Guide on Nuclear Disarmament for Religious Leaders
    RESOURCE GUIDE ON nuclear disarmament FOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND COMMUNITIES RESOURCE GUIDE ON nuclear disarmament FOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND COMMUNITIES Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. — J. Robert Oppenheimer, Director of the Manhattan Project, which created the first atom bomb, quoting the Bhagavad Gita as he witnessed the atom bomb test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945 When scientific power outruns spiritual power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men. — Martin Luther King, Jr. Inside cover: Baker Test, Marshall Islands, July 25, 1946. Photo: U.S. Department of Defense. CATASTROPHIC IMPACT OF NUCLEAR TESTS ON HUMAN HEALTH Now we have this problem of what we call “jelly-fish babies.” These babies are born like jelly-fish. They have no eyes. They have no heads. They have no arms. They have no legs. They do not shape like human beings at all. When they die they are buried right away. A lot of times they don’t allow the mother to see this kind of baby because she will go crazy. It is too inhumane. — Darlene Keju-Johnson, Director of Family Planning 1987–1992, Marshall Islands, on the impact of U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Religions for Peace (RfP) would like to express its gratitude and appreciation to the Norwegian Min- istry of Foreign Affairs and Rissho Kosei-Kai for their years of generous support and partnership in RfP’s education and advocacy program to mobilize religious leaders and their constituencies around a credible, cohesive and bold advocacy and action agenda for peace and shared security, particularly in the area of nuclear disarmament.
    [Show full text]
  • OSP11: Nuclear Weapons Policy 1967-1998
    OPERATIONAL SELECTION POLICY OSP11 NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY 1967-1998 Revised November 2005 1 Authority 1.1 The National Archives' Acquisition Policy announced the Archive's intention of developing Operational Selection Policies across government. These would apply the collection themes described in the overall policy to the records of individual departments and agencies. 1.2 Operational Selection Policies are intended to be working tools for those involved in the selection of public records. This policy may therefore be reviewed and revised in the light of comments from users of the records or from archive professionals, the experience of departments in using the policy, or as a result of newly discovered information. There is no formal cycle of review, but comments would be welcomed at any time. The extent of any review or revision exercise will be determined according to the nature of the comments received. If you have any comments upon this policy, please e-mail records- [email protected] or write to: Acquisition and Disposition Policy Manager Records Management Department The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU 1.3 Operational Selection Policies do not provide guidance on access to selected records. 2 Scope 2.1 This policy relates to all public records on British nuclear weapons policy and development. The departments and agencies concerned are the Prime Minister’s Office, the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Security Policy Department, Defence Department, Atomic Energy and Disarmament Department, and Arms Control and Disarmament Department), HM Treasury (Defence and Material Department), the Department of Trade and Industry (Atomic Energy, and Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate), the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).
    [Show full text]
  • Pursuing Disarmament
    PURSUING DISARMAMENT hortly after the September 11 clear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) program has now been terrorist attacks on Amer- cancelled, the administration is pursuing a plan, labeled ica, Under-Secretary- the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), which will General for the United Na- see the development of a range of new nuclear bombs tions (UN) Disarmament Affairs to replace all weapons currently in the arsenal. It is Jayantha Dhanapala highlighted likely that, over the long run, nuclear testing will be nec- the link between preventing nu- essary for the RRW program. 6 clear terrorism and nuclear disar- mament: “we need to eliminate weapons of mass de- The United States’ proposed option to use nuclear 1 struction before they fall into the hands of terrorists.” weapons against non-nuclear weapon states and for purposes other than retaliation Thus, while the U.S. works with the international com- blurs the distinction between nu- munity to secure more quickly all nuclear weapons clear and conventional warfare. and bomb-making material worldwide, we must also The U.S. government cannot con- realize that a comprehensive approach to prevention tinue to tell other nations, like includes reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons North Korea and Iran, that nuclear and materials from global stockpiles. Indeed, even proliferation is wrong while it pur- before 9/11, signors of the Nuclear Nonproliferation of sues new and more “usable” nu- Treaty (NPT), including the United States, agreed that clear weapons here at home. As a “the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only Salt Lake City Tribune editorial put absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of it, “If the United States, which nuclear weapons.” 2 This sentiment is well supported commands the most powerful con- Polaris C4 Ballistic Missile being launched from the by the American public.
    [Show full text]
  • Subject Categories and Scope Descriptions Co Q
    International Nuclear Information System (INIS) • LU Q CD XA0202260 D) c CO IAEA-ETDE/TNIS-2 o X LU CO -I—• SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SCOPE DESCRIPTIONS CO Q ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series No. 2 CT O c > LU O O E "- =3 CO I? O cB CD C , LU • CD 3 CO -Q T3 CD >- c •a « C c CD o o CD «2 i- CO .3-3/33 CO ,_ CD a) O % 3 O •z. a. Renewable energy technologies • Radiation protection • Energy storage, conversion, and consumption Radioactive waste management • Energy policy • Radiation effects on living organisms • Fossil fuels INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, JULY 2002 ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series No. 2 SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SCOPE DESCRIPTIONS INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA, JULY 2002 SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SCOPE DESCRIPTIONS IAEA, VIENNA, 2002 IAEA-ETDE/INIS-2 ISBN 92-0-112902-5 ISSN 1684-095X © IAEA, 2002 Printed by the IAEA in Austria July 2002 PREFACE This document is one in a series of publications known as the ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series. It defines the subject categories and provides the scope descriptions to be used for categorization of the nuclear literature for the preparation of INIS input by national and regional centers. Together with volumes of the INIS Reference Series and ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series it defines the rules, standards and practices and provides the authorities to be used in the International Nuclear Information System. A list of the volumes published in the IMS Reference Series and ETDE/ENIS Joint Reference Series can be found at the end of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Bridges to Effective Nuclear Disarmament
    Building Bridges to Effective Nuclear Disarmament Recommendations for the 2020 Review Process for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Group of Eminent Persons on the Substantive Advancement of Nuclear Disarmament I. In Search of a Common Goal for a Divided World 1. The vision for a world without nuclear weapons has become blurred and needs to be refocused. Two opposing trends in disarmament have come into sharper relief. Deepening concerns over the deteriorating strategic environment impel some states to reaffirm reliance on nuclear deterrence in the belief that nuclear deterrence benefits national and international security and stability and prevents a major war. At the same time, other states and civil society groups, including hibakusha, seek the total elimination of nuclear weapons without further delay, based on deep concerns about the risks of catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear use, as reflected in the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). This divide has deepened and become so stark that states with divergent views have been unable to engage meaningfully with each other on key issues. 2. The Group of Eminent Persons strongly believes that the stalemate over nuclear disarmament is not tenable. Whatever the disagreements expressed by states regarding the NPT process and the TPNW, it is not in any state’s interest to allow the foundation of the global nuclear order to crumble. Rather, it is a common interest of all states to improve the international security environment and pursue a world without nuclear weapons in line with Article VI of the NPT.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Review 2021: Increasing the Cap on the Nuclear Stockpile
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 9175, 19 March 2021 Integrated Review 2021: Increasing the cap on the By Claire Mills UK's nuclear stockpile The UK has, in the past, been lauded as one of the most transparent nuclear weapon states and the country that has taken the greatest strides towards disarmament since the end of the Cold War.1 Although figures vary between analysts,2 at its height the UK’s nuclear stockpile was approximately 520 warheads. The current stockpile is estimated at 195 warheads.3 This makes the UK the smallest of the NPT-recognised nuclear weapon states (also known as the P5).4 The UK is also the only nuclear weapon state to have reduced to a single system: the submarine-launched Trident missile system. The Government’s Integrated Review on Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, published on 16 March 2021, announced some significant changes to the UK’s nuclear posture, however, including a 40 per cent increase on the size of the UK’s nuclear warhead stockpile. Box 1: The UK’s track record on disarmament since the end of the Cold War • At its Cold War peak the UK nuclear stockpile consisted of approximately 520 nuclear warheads. • Following the end of the Cold War a review of the UK’s nuclear posture resulted in the RAF’s WE-177 free-fall bombs being phased out, and the capability of the Royal Navy’s surface ships to carry or deploy nuclear weapons being dismantled. By 1998 the deterrent had been reduced to one single system: Trident. The total stockpile was reduced by approximately 20 per cent and the number of operationally available warheads fell from around 400 during the 1980s to an estimated 300.
    [Show full text]
  • Disarmament Yearbook
    The United Nations DISARMAMENT YEARBOOK YEARBOOK The United Nations DISARMAMENT United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs United Nations Disarmament Yearbook A rich source of historical knowledge of developments, trends and achievements of multilateral disarmament for more than 40 years. Part I contains an annual compilation of text and statistics of disarmament-related resolutions and The United Nations decisions of the General Assembly. Part II presents the main topics of multilateral consideration during the year and a convenient issues-oriented timeline. Available online at www.un.org/disarmament. DISARMAMENT UNODA Update YEARBOOK An electronic newsletter giving information on the activities of the Office for Disarmament Affairs in all relevant areas of disarmament. Available at www.un.org/disarmament. Occasional Papers A biannual publication with edited presentations made at international meetings, symposiums, seminars or workshops organized by the Office for Disarmament Affairs or its regional centres in Lima, Lomé or Kathmandu. Available at www.un.org/disarmament. Website—www.un.org/disarmament A comprehensive website on all issues in the purview of the Office for Disarmament Affairs in the field of disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control, featuring: • Searchable database of disarmament resolutions and decisions going back to the fifty-second session (1997) of the General Assembly • United Nations Register of Conventional Arms—unique information exchange on international arms transfers Volume 44 (Part II): 2019 • Text
    [Show full text]
  • Country Perspectives on the Challenges to Nuclear Disarmament
    Reducing and Eliminating Nuclear Weapons: Country Perspectives on the Challenges to Nuclear Disarmament Reducing and Eliminating Nuclear Weapons: Country Perspectives on the Challenges to Nuclear Disarmament www.fissilematerials.org © 2010 International Panel on Fissile Materials This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 Table of Contents About the IPFM 1 Overview 2 Country Perspectives China 10 France 16 Germany 22 India 26 Iran 30 Israel 36 Japan 46 North Korea 56 South Korea 63 Pakistan 67 Russia 74 United Kingdom 84 United States 93 Endnotes 102 Contributors 123 About the IPFM The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) was founded in January 2006. It is an independent group of arms-control and nonproliferation experts from seventeen countries, including both nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states. The mission of the IPFM is to analyze the technical basis for practical and achievable policy initiatives to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of highly enriched urani- um and plutonium. These fissile materials are the key ingredients in nuclear weapons, and their control is critical to nuclear disarmament, halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and ensuring that terrorists do not acquire nuclear weapons. Both military and civilian stocks of fissile materials have to be addressed. The nuclear weapon states still have enough fissile materials in their weapon stockpiles for tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. On the civilian side, enough plutonium has been sepa- rated to make a similarly large number of weapons. Highly enriched uranium is used in civilian reactor fuel in more than one hundred locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium-Weapons-En-328.Pdf
    It should be noted that the articles contained in Disarmament Forum are the sole responsibility of the individual authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the United Nations, UNIDIR, its staff members or sponsors. The names and designations of countries, territories, cities and areas employed in Disarmament Forum do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. ii Printed at United Nations, Geneva GE.05-00859—October 2008 —3,820 UNIDIR/DF/2008/3 ISSN 1020-7287 TABLE OF CONTENTS Editor's Note Kerstin VIGNARD ............................................................................................................. 1 Uranium Weapons The health hazards of depleted uranium Ian FAIRLIE ...................................................................................................................... 3 Depleted uranium weapons: the next target for disarmament? Avril MCDONALD .................................................................................................. 17 Uranium weapons: why all the fuss? Chris BUSBY .................................................................................................................... 25 Under the radar: identifying third-generation uranium weapons Dai WILLIAMS ................................................................................................................ 35 The risks of depleted uranium contamination post-conflict:UNEP assessments Mario BURGER ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]