Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The background to this motion is that it was one of the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which I chair, which investigated the issues concerning nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament in 2009 and reported on them in the treaties committee report, Report 106: Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for introducing and supporting this very important and very unusual bipartisan motion.

I want to again thank my fellow committee members—one of whom is sitting beside me, the member for Shortland—not just for producing a 230-plus-page report, but also for their attitude of cooperation and determination to say something significant and worth while, which they demonstrated in the way they approached this task. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has members from the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals and the Greens, with very different perspectives on a range of nuclear and foreign policy questions, but each member of the committee wanted to play their part in protecting people from the nuclear threat and to ensure that Australia's voice is heard loud and clear around the world on these matters. So we worked through the issues until we achieved an agreed outcome, a platform for progress.

What is that platform? The committee wants to see the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in place. This treaty is incredibly important in halting the momentum for nuclear proliferation and ultimately ring-barking the nuclear weapons tree. We want all the uranium-exporting countries to require that the countries whom they export uranium to have an additional protocol to guarantee international atomic inspector access. We believe that the International Atomic Energy Agency's budget needs to be increased so that it can do its work properly and thoroughly. The committee examined proposals for a nuclear weapons convention and for a multilateral fuel bank. In each case more work needs to be done and we recommended the allocation of research and consultation resources towards the development of a nuclear weapons convention with a clear legal framework and enforceable verification.

It is important to understand that the friction between the nuclear haves and have-nots is alive and well. Throughout the history of the non-proliferation treaty, the nuclear haves have stressed nonproliferation—that is to say, making sure no other country gets nuclear weapons—while the nuclear have-nots have stressed disarmament—that is, obliging the nuclear-armed countries to get rid of their bombs. The countries of the non-aligned movement, essentially have-nots, are frustrated by the lack of progress on disarmament. Too often this difference of approach has led to international stalemate. Clearly, we need to have action on both fronts—nonproliferation and disarmament.

I am aware of resistance from within the non-aligned movement and the developing countries to the idea of the International Atomic Energy Agency carrying out the nuclear security function. But my view is that every country has a stake in stopping other countries from developing nuclear weapons. It is not enough to say that because we do not have nuclear weapons we are doing everything we can. The non-nuclear-weapon states could campaign for universal adherence to the additional protocol and should campaign for states to give up their aspirations for an indigenous enrichment capacity in favour of a multilateral fuel bank.

The road to nuclear hell is paved with defensive intentions. The United States developed nuclear weapons after it was attacked during the Second World War by Japan, and both the United States and Russia developed nuclear weapons as a defensive strategy during the Cold War. Because they have nuclear weapons, China, which at various times during the nuclear age has had poor relations with both America and Russia, developed nuclear weapons as well. Because China had nuclear weapons, India felt threatened and developed nuclear weapons. Because India had nuclear weapons, Pakistan felt threatened and developed nuclear weapons. The strength of religious fundamentalist groups in Pakistan has created an ever-present and alarming risk that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of non-state actors, terrorists groups who have no respect for human life and who will take no notice of doctrines of deterrence and mutually-assured destruction in the way that governments might not unreasonably be expected to. We must do all that we can to break every link in this dangerous nuclear chain.

Back in 2009 President Barack Obama gave what is known as the Prague speech, setting out a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. It was more than welcome. The progress in discussions between the United States and Russia on a replacement nuclear weapons reduction treaty for START was also welcome. In February 2010 US and Russian negotiators reached an agreement in principle on a successor treaty to START that would reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons to between 1,500 and 1,675 each from the 2,200 agreed in 1991. There would be a reduction in nuclear delivery systems, and there was a joint understanding signed by President Barack Obama and then President Dmitry Medvedev in July 2009 which led to this. We also had a new Russian military doctrine announced at that time, moving away from earlier rhetoric on nuclear use closer towards the sole purpose of nuclear weapons being to deter nuclear attack, and that declaration is a positive step too.

It is America and Russia who have the vast majority of the world's nuclear weapons, so other countries can hardly be expected to disarm if there is no leadership coming from America and Russia. But the efforts of America and Russia alone will not make the world safe from nuclear attack—far from it. They must be complemented by steps taken by the other nuclear powers to also disarm. China, India and Pakistan will, like America and Russia, need to have bilateral or trilateral discussions so that reducing their nuclear hardware will not be seen within their own countries as prejudicial to their national security. Our task is to re-energise the international political debate against a background of a decade or more in which the international community has been sleepwalking when it comes to nonproliferation and especially disarmament.

It is good news that the Australian government has been heavily involved in the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, co-chaired by the former Japanese foreign minister Yoriko Kawaguchi and the former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, who has an outstanding international reputation and has done first-class work around the world, building the case for action. That commission released its report in late 2009.

Those developments, the announcements by Barack Obama and the negotiations with the Russians have been very good news. But there has been plenty of bad news on the nuclear front. North Korea has tested rockets that could be used for long-range missiles and conducted a nuclear explosion, in flagrant breach of the United Nations rules. Iran has also engaged in nuclear and ballistic missile activity. It locked out the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose job it is to make sure that countries producing nuclear power to generate electricity are not also trying to produce nuclear weapons.

The fact that we have now survived over 60 years of the age of nuclear weapons without descending into nuclear holocaust has been the cause of lot of analysis and discussion, with reference to the doctrines of deterrence and mutually assured destruction. I think one of the factors that should be acknowledged is the role of organisations around the world dedicated to peace, stubbornly refusing to recognise any legitimate role for nuclear weapons and helping to ensure that a climate in which the use of nuclear weapons might seem legitimate could not arise.

One of those organisations which I want to acknowledge this evening is the Australian Red Cross and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Late last year the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement met in Geneva to discuss a global resolution, and a landmark resolution was endorsed. This was done by representatives of 186 national societies from across the globe. Given the wide credibility that it has, I will take the liberty of reading it to the House:

Working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons:

The Council of Delegates,

deeply concerned about the destructive power of nuclear weapons, the unspeakable human suffering they cause, the difficulty of controlling their effects in space and time, the threat they pose to the environment and to future generations and the risks of escalation they create,

concerned also by the continued retention of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, the proliferation of such weapons and the constant risk that they could again be used,

disturbed by the serious implications of any use of nuclear weapons for humanitarian assistance activities and food production over wide areas of the world,

believing that the existence of nuclear weapons raises profound questions about the extent of suffering that humans are willing to inflict, or to permit, in warfare,

welcoming the renewed diplomatic efforts on nuclear disarmament, in particular the commitments made by States at the 2009 United Nations Security Council Summit on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament, the 2010 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,

welcoming also the commitments made by States at the highest levels in the above fora to create the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons through concrete actions in the fields of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament,

… … …

drawing upon the testimony of atomic bomb survivors, the experience of the Japan Red Cross and ICRC in assisting the victims of the atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the knowledge gained through the ongoing treatment of survivors by the Japanese Red Cross Atomic Bomb Survivors Hospitals,

… … …

… emphasizes the incalculable human suffering that can be expected to result from any use of nuclear weapons, the lack of any adequate humanitarian response capacity and the absolute imperative to prevent such use,

… finds it difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law, in particular the rules of distinction, precaution and proportionality,

… appeals to all States:

- to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used, regardless of their views on the legality of such weapons,

- to pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement, based on existing commitments and international obligations …

Robert Tickner from the Australian Red Cross has said that it is their hope that they are able to achieve cross-party support from all the major political parties in Australia for the principles raised in the resolution. I want to register my support for the important contribution the movement has made in seeking the development of international law to clarify the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons.

There are so many nuclear weapons in the world that we can expect to be occupied for the remainder of our lives in the fight to get rid of them. We have a long way to go before we have to look too closely at what a world without nuclear weapons would actually look like. But I think it is necessary to have at least a little bit of a look at such a world, because otherwise we run the risk of bumping our heads up against resistance that seems illogical to us but is there all the same.

I believe that a world without nuclear weapons would be a safer world but the reality is that, in every country which possesses nuclear weapons, there are defence planners, policy makers and, indeed, ordinary citizens who are anxious that if they give up all their nuclear weapons they may be vulnerable to attack from another country—a country with superior conventional weapons, a larger army or a motive to attack them. Because of this, I believe that ultimate success in ridding the world of nuclear weapons will also depend on being able to achieve substantial disarming of conventional forces and weapons as well.

There needs to be more bilateral, multilateral and global discussion about reducing the size and reach of the armies of the world. We need to do more to address the underlying causes of war and terrorism. Analysts spend a great deal of time assessing the political and religious factors leading to the scourge of terrorism and of war in the modern world but they spend less time noting the underlying cause—conflict over scarce resources, scarce land, scarce water and scarce oil brought about by increasing population. So we need to be able to visualise a world without nuclear weapons, and that means thinking about what risks as well as benefits come with that and intelligently planning to address them. Borrowing a little from the late Edward Kennedy, the dream of a world without nuclear weapons is a dream that must never die. We must never accept that it is alright to live in a world where some people have the power to kill tens of millions of their fellow human beings and make the planet uninhabitable in a heartbeat.

See this speech in context