2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report

2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report 1
: Analysis of Voting Patterns of 12 Countries on UN Resolutions on Nuclear Disarmament
2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report 2
: Review of the Nuclear Policies of the ROK

PSPD has just published ‘2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report 1: Analysis of Voting Patterns of 12 Countries on UN Resolutions on Nuclear Disarmament’, and ‘2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report 2: Analysis of Nuclear Policies of the ROK’. As 2010 NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) Review Conference is just around the corner, the Nuclear Disarmament Reports introduce agendas and controversial issues of the international discussion on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The 2010 Nuclear Disarmament Reports also provide a comprehensive analysis of the positions of the nuclear weapon states and 6 Party Talks members on nuclear disarmament.

The 2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report1 consists of 4 parts. Firstly, the Report1 covers the voting patterns of the 12 states on nuclear disarmament resolutions submitted to the United Nations General Assembly from 2003 to 2009. Secondly, the Report1 also introduces issues and states’ positions on the international conventions on nuclear issues including NWC (Nuclear Weapon Convention), CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty), FMCT (Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty), and NSA (Negative Security Assurance). Thirdly, the Report1 tries to provide mid-term evaluation of the Obama’s nuclear policies towards the nuclear weapon free world. Lastly, it examines the controversial points and agendas of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and concludes with several recommendations to be compromised and reached an agreement.

The Nuclear Disarmament Report2 specifically deals with the Lee Myung-bak government of South Korea whose policies countering the North Korea’s nuclear issues is not consistent with her voting patterns on UN resolutions on nuclear disarmament. The Report2 compares and examines the inconsistency between denuclearization of North Korea and the nuclear weapon free world of the Lee Myung-bak by looking into ‘the nuclear power plants sales diplomacy’ called by Lee Myung-bak by himself and his on-going attempts to remedy the nuclear energy agreement with the US, so allowing South Korea to be able to enrich uranium and reprocess the spent fuel. The Report2 is concluded with recommendations the Lee government to pursue at the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

PSPD said that the Nuclear Disarmament Reports could contribute to widening the Korean society’s attention on nuclear issues from North Korea’s nuclear armament towards the nuclear weapon free world.

PSPD is not only publishing the Reports but also attending the 2010 NPT Review Conference at New York, the US, aiming to publicize the Nuclear Weapon Free Northeast Asia which South and North Korea and Japan declare non-nuclear state status while the US, Russia and China declare the negative security assurance to those countries. Denuclearization of Northeast Asia means not only abolition of nuclear weapons of North Korea, but also the nuclear umbrella as a nuclear deterrent of South Korea and Japan must be abolished at the same time. The main activities of PSPD at New York are as follows;

– Attending the Civil Society Forum on Nuclear Weapon Free Zones held by PNND (April 29)
– 2010 NPT Review Conference Planning Committee’s conferences and international peace rallies (April31~May2)
– Holding a workshop ‘Challenging Asia-Pacific Militarism and Achieving Nuclear Weapons Abolition’ with NGOs from the Pacific islands, Japan, the US, China and South Korea (May1 10am @ Riverside Church)
– Holding a conference ‘Military Spending in Northeast Asia and Pacific Freeze Campaign’ with IPS(US) and Peace Boat(Japan) (May 3 7pm @ 403 Kent Hall @ Columbia University)
– Holding a workshop ‘A Northeast Asia NWFZ Can Boost a “World without Nuclear Weapons” – joint call by parliament, mayors and citizens’ (May 6, 10am @ Room A North Lawn Bld UN), and
– daily monitoring the South Korean government activities during the Conference

☞ Page3. [Executive Summary] 2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report 1
Analysis of Voting Patterns of 12 Countries on UN Resolutions
☞ Page7. [Executive Summary] 2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report 2
Review of the Lee Myubg-bak’s Nuclear Policies
 

[Executive Summary] 2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report 1
Analysis of Voting Patterns of 12 Countries on UN Resolutions

※ 12 countries include 5 official nuclear eapon states (US, Russia, China, France, UK), 5 countries that are considered possessing nuclear weapons or attempting to possess (India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iran) and Japan that is the only non-nuclear state with the reprocessing plant as well as South Korea.

1. Characteristics of the Voting Patterns on Nuclear Resolutions

– The US government showed a noticeable change from voting against 100% resolutions to voting favored 15% of the resolutions.
– Israel showed the lowest support for the nuclear resolutions. Israel as well as the US keeps NCND policy on nuclear weapons which allowing exemption from nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation obligations. Such double standards have given proliferation states excuses.
– On the other hand, Iran showed the highest support for the resolutions. Iran has been suspected by the US for making highly enriched uranium.
– Among five official nuclear weapon states, China presented the highest support (75%).
– Among unofficial nuclear weapon states including Israel, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, Iran(92%) and North Korea(60%) showed relatively high agreement on nuclear disarmament resolutions.
– South Korea and Japan are expected to show high support for the nuclear disarmament resolutions as a non-nuclear state, but they showed half support (54% and 62% respectively). Particularly, these two countries voted against ‘Follow-up to nuclear disarmament to obligations agreed to at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’ resolution. It was against the will of the non-nuclear weapon states. Such absurd voting patterns can be explained by the US nuclear umbrella that they enjoy. They may afraid that nuclear disarmament of the US could result in weakening the US nuclear deterrent.

2. Controversial Issues of the 2010 NPT Review Conference

– States will continue the conflict and arguments on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear which are the three pillars of the NPT.
– The US is expected to demand non-nuclear states more obligations of non-proliferation and cooperation for countering nuclear terrorism. It is also expected to put efforts to strengthen the controlling non-proliferation aspect of the NPT and make some measurements against the states that do not comply with the NPT regime such as Iran and North Korea.
– NAM (non-aligned movement) states would welcome the New START of the US and Russia. Nevertheless, there will be still numerous nuclear weapons and fissile materials even New START’s goals are achieved son or later. NAM would require nuclear weapon states to proceed toward universal and complete nuclear disarmament.
– In particular, NPT could have been extended unlimitedly due to the Middle East resolution. However, the US still keeps NCND on Israel’s nuclear weapon possession and requiring Israel to fulfill disarmament obligations. Therefore, it is not quite apparent whether NAM states as well as non-nuclear states would agree to what the US proceeds.
– The NPT does allow to rich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, but the distinction between the right to peaceful use of nuclear and nuclear proliferation is getting tough and obscure. As the Iran case revealing, it is not easy to detect or control the technical growth or change of political will even one state starts from enriching uranium at the low level with good faith. South Korea is another example that insisting to possess a reprocessing right while advocating ‘nuclear sovereignty’ by the government and the ruling parties.

3. Recommendations to the 200 NPT Review Conference

– To consolidate the NPT regime, the nuclear disarmament efforts by the nuclear states and those states who enjoy nuclear deterrence from them must present meaningful results.
– All the states, especially the nuclear weapon states must put very specific efforts to make nuclear conventions including NWC(Nuclear Weapon Convention), CTBT(Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty), FMCT(Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty), and NSA(Negative Security Assurance) enter into force or conclude the negotiations.
– All the states, especially the nuclear weapon states must cooperate to realize the nuclear weapon free zones as an interim course towards the nuclear weapon free world.
– Particularly, all the states, especially 6 Party Talks States are urged to adopt a official resolution on the Nuclear Weapon Free Northeast Asia region since there are joint support from the parliaments and the civil society from South Korea and Japan.

4. Review of the Obama’s Nuclear Policies

< President Obama’s Path towards the Nuclear Weapons Free World>
2009. April 5 – Nuclear Weapon Free World declared at his Prague Speech
2009. Sep. 24 – Chairing the UN Security Council Summit and Sponsoring and Adopting Resolution 1887
2010. Apr. 8 – Singing for the New START(STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between US and Russia
2010. Apr. 6 – Publishing the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review
2010. Apr. 12~13 – Holding the Nuclear Security Summit

Improvements :
– As considering the several achievements towards the nuclear weapon free as below and the analysis of the voting patterns on the UN nuclear resolutions, the Obama administration did show certain improvements, which are distinguished from the Bush administration that did show off the nuclear hegemony.

Limits:
– Wrong priorities of the nuclear policies: the Obama administration considers the nuclear terrorism as important as nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear. It is certainly necessary to prepare measurements for countering nuclear terrorism. However, it should be accompanied with nuclear disarmament so that restoring the fairness and effectiveness of the NPT regime.
– Adhering to the nuclear hegemony: 2010 NPR says the US is to be maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent whilst no adoption of the No First Use Doctrine. It also says it is to improving conventional military capabilities and the missile defense system. It really discourages the international community and civil society who are looking forward comprehensive conventional weapons disarmaments as well as nuclear disarmaments.
– Lacking the will for nuclear disarmament: the Obama administration targets non-proliferation rather than nuclear disarmament, especially emphasizing elevating nuclear security posture for countering the nuclear terrorism. In addition, nuclear disarmaments including the New START look insufficient to make a change in the nuclear hegemony for the US and Russia.
– Controversies over fissile materials: the Obama administration looks showing positive attitude on the concluding the FMCT negotiations. However, the US has insisted that the FMCT covers only future-production cut-off while other non-nuclear states argue that it should includes fissile materials already produced and stockpiled. Therefore, the Obama administration has to take rather provocative policies than the former governments. Otherwise, the FMCT would be easily concluded.
– Controversies over the right to peaceful use of nuclear: the former US governments have applied arbitrary and deflective standards for the peaceful use of nuclear to other non-nuclear states. For instance, Japan is the only non-nuclear state allowed to possess reprocessing plant for spent nuclear fuel while India, which is non-NPT member but possessing nuclear weapons, was agreed to have civil nuclear trade with the US. Therefore, such arbitrary application of peaceful use of nuclear energy may discourage the non-nuclear states to refrain from proliferation, and rather encourage nuclear proliferation.
– Double Standards to proliferation states: the Obama follows the double standards and exceptional favors on Israel, Pakistan and India over the last US governments. It may not be obtain justification over solving North Korea and Iran’s proliferation.

[Executive Summary] 2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report 2
Review of the Lee Myubg-bak’s Nuclear Policies

Evaluations

1. Nuclear Plant Sales Diplomacy

– the Lee government seems not understand the sensitive controversies over between the peaceful use of nuclear and nuclear proliferation.
– Nuclear plant sale to the UAE (United Arab Emirates): first of all, the Lee government announced the sale was 40 billion dollars while the public notice of the public corporation in charge of the sale said 18.6 billion dollars. Secondly, there is no transparent disclose of information regarding the contract. There is an indication for hidden contract for military alliance, which requires public consent.
– Nuclear agreement with India: India is undermining the NPT regime and international efforts for non-proliferation since it has not applied for the NPT but developed nuclear weapons. Therefore, nuclear trade with India also violates the NPT regime, which provides the peaceful use of nuclear with non-nuclear states under IAEA surveillance. It also affects the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, since the South Korea government has stopped constructing light-water nuclear plant in North Korea. The Lee Myung-bak government’s double standard between India and North Korea may undermine the justification for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

2. Remedy of the nuclear energy agreement with the US
– After the second nuclear test by North Korea on 2009 May 25, there has been a voice for calling for ‘nuclear sovereignty’ and nuclear armament within the South Korean society. Based on such call, the Lee Myung-bak government and the ruling party have set a taskforce team for remedying the nuclear energy agreement with the US which does not allow enriching or reprocessing. However, it may violate that Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula stating ‘the South and the North shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities’ while narrowing the room for calling for denuclearization to North Korea. Moreover, reprocessing could not be simplified as a peaceful use of nuclear while reprocessing it neither technically applicable nor economical.

3. ’Abolition of nuclear weapons of North Korea comes first’ policy vs Pursuing Nuclear Umbrella
– the Lee government has persisted with a overbearing attitude over the North Korean nuclear issues as requiring North Korea to abolish its nuclear weapons prior to other issues. Besides, the Lee government has emphasized the importance to act when there is a sudden change within the North Korean society. Such domineering policies for North Korea have been accelerating conflicts and tension.
– President Lee Myung-bak could be criticized for losing universal and consistent in carrying out nuclear policies. He has to strengthen initiatives in the international efforts for nuclear disarmament, and see the North Korean nuclear issues as one of the tasks for achieving the nuclear weapon free world’.

Recommendations to the Lee Myung-bak Government

– The Lee government must present more active and affirmative initiatives for universal nuclear disarmament.
– The Lee government must be determined to take initiatives for the Nuclear Weapon Free Northeast Asia and put efforts to submit a resolution, which stating “North and South Korea and Japan adhere to the non-nuclear status by South Korea and Japan’s abandoning nuclear umbrella policy and North Korea’s abolishing nuclear weapons. And the US, Russia and China provide negative security assurance.”
– The Lee government must abandon disregarding North Korea with a domineering manner but put efforts to have dialogues.

2010 Nuclear Disarmament Report.doc