The member of UN cast their overwhelming votes for starting the “negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons”, even though the “nuclear-armed” countries along with their allies demonstrated “strong opposition”. Last week’s UN voting session on the “disarmament and international security committee”, hundred and twenty three nations were for the resolution, while 38 of them were against and 16 of them are still holding back.
Among the opposing countries were the nuclear powers of the world, “the United States, Russia, Israel, France and the United Kingdom” along with India, China, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan. Moreover, as per the last week’s forecast, and also being a “long-time dependant on the US’s extended nuclear deterrence”, Australia echoed the decision of the nuclear countries.
As a result, the resolution is scheduled to go to a “full general assembly vote” which is likely to take place sometimes in the month of December 2016, whereby the aim of the resolution is to organise a meeting in the month of March 2017, for negotiating a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.
Richard Sadleir, the Assistant Secretary at the “Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade” of Australia, forecasted in front of the Senate:
“Consistent with the position to that we took to the open-ended working group (into nuclear disarmament) report, we will be voting no with respect to that resolution.”
“We do not support a ban treaty. A ban treaty that does not include the nuclear weapons states, those states which possess nuclear weapons, and is disconnected from the rest of the security environment, would be counterproductive and not lead to reductions in nuclear arsenals.”
In worlds of the Founding Chairperson of the “International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons” as well as the Co-President of the “International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War”, Professor Tilman Ruff, terms the vote to be a step to go down the memory lane of history, heralding “an end to two decades of paralysis in multilateral nuclear disarmament”. He said:
“The numbers are especially encouraging given the ferocious pressure on countries to vote no by the nuclear-armed states, who see that this will fundamentally challenge their continued possession of nuclear weapons”.
“The treaty will fill the legal gap by which the most destructive of all weapons – nuclear weapons – are the only weapon of mass destruction to not yet be outlawed by international treaty.”
However, as per Ruff:
“Australia is doing dirty work for Washington, and is willing for US nuclear weapons to be used on its behalf, and potentially with its assistance”.
“It is inconceivable that Australia would not eventually sign up to a treaty prohibiting the last to be banned and worst [weapons of mass destruction]. We’ve signed every other treaty banning an unacceptable weapon, and on some, like chemical weapons, we were a leader.”
As there is no “nuclear disarmament negotiations” as of now, the ban treaty is the “only feasible path” for getting rid of the “world of nuclear weapons available now”.
References:
www.theguardian.com
Among the opposing countries were the nuclear powers of the world, “the United States, Russia, Israel, France and the United Kingdom” along with India, China, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan. Moreover, as per the last week’s forecast, and also being a “long-time dependant on the US’s extended nuclear deterrence”, Australia echoed the decision of the nuclear countries.
As a result, the resolution is scheduled to go to a “full general assembly vote” which is likely to take place sometimes in the month of December 2016, whereby the aim of the resolution is to organise a meeting in the month of March 2017, for negotiating a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.
Richard Sadleir, the Assistant Secretary at the “Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade” of Australia, forecasted in front of the Senate:
“Consistent with the position to that we took to the open-ended working group (into nuclear disarmament) report, we will be voting no with respect to that resolution.”
“We do not support a ban treaty. A ban treaty that does not include the nuclear weapons states, those states which possess nuclear weapons, and is disconnected from the rest of the security environment, would be counterproductive and not lead to reductions in nuclear arsenals.”
In worlds of the Founding Chairperson of the “International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons” as well as the Co-President of the “International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War”, Professor Tilman Ruff, terms the vote to be a step to go down the memory lane of history, heralding “an end to two decades of paralysis in multilateral nuclear disarmament”. He said:
“The numbers are especially encouraging given the ferocious pressure on countries to vote no by the nuclear-armed states, who see that this will fundamentally challenge their continued possession of nuclear weapons”.
“The treaty will fill the legal gap by which the most destructive of all weapons – nuclear weapons – are the only weapon of mass destruction to not yet be outlawed by international treaty.”
However, as per Ruff:
“Australia is doing dirty work for Washington, and is willing for US nuclear weapons to be used on its behalf, and potentially with its assistance”.
“It is inconceivable that Australia would not eventually sign up to a treaty prohibiting the last to be banned and worst [weapons of mass destruction]. We’ve signed every other treaty banning an unacceptable weapon, and on some, like chemical weapons, we were a leader.”
As there is no “nuclear disarmament negotiations” as of now, the ban treaty is the “only feasible path” for getting rid of the “world of nuclear weapons available now”.
References:
www.theguardian.com
