Chapter 12 The role of Parliamentarians
Introduction
12.1
The Committee’s terms of reference ask it to consider how
inter-parliamentary action can assist in strengthening treaty-based aspects of
the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. Participants in the
inquiry saw that there were some very specific ways that the Australian Parliament
could contribute.
12.2
This chapter will examine some of these opportunities and make a number
of suggestions for a more involved role for parliamentarians in Australia and
globally.
12.3
The chapter also briefly examines the role of civil society and how
parliamentarians can contribute to promoting the views of civil society and
mobilising action.
The global challenge for parliamentarians
12.4
The co-chair of International Commission for Nuclear Non-proliferation
and Disarmament (ICNND), the Hon Gareth Evans AO QC, has said in relation to
nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, ‘[w]e have to make this a mainstream
political issue’.[1] The Committee concurs
with this statement.
12.5
In evidence to the Committee, Mr Evans stated:
…there is a bit of hunger for leadership on these issues.
While, obviously, the leadership is ultimately going to have to come from the
big guys, not least the US itself, there is an extraordinarily useful role that
can be played by creative, energetic middle powers that have a genuine global
respect on these issues.[2]
12.6
In 1996, the Canberra Commission argued:
High level political commitment has proven time and again to
be the crucial condition for the resolution of seemingly intractable solutions
and reconciling embittered foes.[3]
12.7
The case of the Canberra Commission illustrates clearly the importance
of maintaining political momentum on these issues. As discussed in the first
chapter, it is also evident that the political will to progress these issues is
very important. The optimism that has been generated on the basis of statements
by President Obama clearly exemplifies this.
12.8
The Committee considers that parliamentarians occupy an important
position that they can utilise to both raise awareness and stimulate policy debate.
In his submission, the President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Hon Theo-Ben
Gurirab stated:
… there is considerable scope for meaningful parliamentary
action in support of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Parliaments can
raise awareness of the issues at stake and mobilize political action. Informal
parliamentary dialogue and exchange can lead to new initiatives and help
overcome grid-locks at the level of formal diplomacy and negotiations.[4]
12.9
In the context of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament
treaties, the Committee considers that parliamentarians are well equipped, as
Mr Gurirab suggested, to pursue dialogue outside formal negotiations. This
might be particularly important in relation to the Conference on Disarmament
and negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.
Engaging parliamentarians
Parliamentary organisations
12.10
Internationally, parliamentarians have an opportunity to promote nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament issues in organised parliamentary fora including
the:
n Inter-Parliamentary
Union (IPU);
n Asia-Pacific
Parliamentary Forum (APPF);
n Parliamentarians for
Global Action, a network of over 1,300 parliamentarians in more than 100
countries; and
n Parliamentarians for
Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, a network of over 500
parliamentarians from 70 countries.[5]
12.11
The Australian Parliament has a Cross Party Group on Nuclear Disarmament
and Non-Proliferation.
12.12
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons argued in its
submission that such fora can provide:
… a valuable point of continuing focus, education, dialogue
and parliamentary initiatives engaging with the government, diplomatic
representatives, civil society organisations and the public, as well as contact
with parliamentarians in other countries.[6]
12.13
The Committee notes that the Hon Roger Price MP presented a report and
draft resolution on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and entry into
force of the CTBT at the IPU’s 119th meeting in 2008. This
resolution was adopted at the 120th IPU meeting in April 2009.
12.14
A delegation of the Committee met with Mr Anders Johnsson,
Secretary-General of the IPU in Geneva on 2 July 2009. The delegation discussed
the report and draft resolution presented by Mr Price and opportunities to continue
to promote non-proliferation and disarmament at the IPU’s 121st
meeting in October 2009. The Committee intends to make its report available for
circulation at that meeting and encourages the delegation to the meeting to
take up these issues.
12.15
In his submission, the Executive Secretary to the Preparatory Commission
for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Organization saw an important role for
parliamentarians in awareness raising through the IPU:
Inter-parliamentary cooperation such as through the IPU has a
substantial awareness raising value in particular vis-à-vis parliamentarians
from countries that still need to ratify key non-proliferation and disarmament
treaties.[7]
12.16
Ambassador Toth highlighted work undertaken by Australia in 2007,
including inclusion of entry into force of the CTBT on the agenda of the IPU
Assembly in 2007.[8] Ambassador Toth expressed
the hope that the IPU resolution will ‘send a strong signal’ to the remaining
nine countries whose ratifications are required to bring the CTBT into force.[9]
12.17
In their submission, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and
Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office indicated that resolutions
through these fora supporting a successful 2010 NPT Review Conference ‘would be
welcome’.[10]
Australian parliamentary delegations
12.18
In evidence to the Committee, Mr Allan Behm argued:
We should think about members of our parliament being fully
paid up members of our international delegations that do serious business, and
I do not mean as observers, but as players.[11]
12.19
In their submission, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office also saw an opportunity for
parliamentarians to engage with their counterparts to inform and influence
their views on key nuclear security objectives.[12]
12.20
The Committee considers there are real opportunities for
parliamentarians to become more involved in promoting Australia’s disarmament
and non-proliferation objectives. The regular outgoing parliamentary delegation
program of the Parliament, approved each year by the Presiding Officers,
presents an ideal opportunity to raise these issues with parliamentarians in
other countries.
12.21
The Committee proposes that an ongoing brief for parliamentary
delegations to raise nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament issues be
adopted. This should include promoting ratification of the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in countries whose ratification is key to bringing the
Treaty into force. Parliamentarians should also provide support for a Fissile
Material Cut-Off Treaty. As discussed in earlier chapters, considerable effort
will be required to progress this Treaty. Any assistance that parliamentarians
can provide to generate political will to support the Treaty and overcome
differences can only assist negotiations.
12.22
The Committee considers that this inquiry has highlighted a range of
other issues that parliamentarians can more generally advocate. This includes
support for ICNND and for strengthening the NPT regime by overcoming resistance
to stronger non-proliferation measures. Australian parliamentarians could also
push for a stronger commitment to disarmament by nuclear weapon states.
12.23
The participation of parliamentarians in relevant parliamentary
conferences presents another opportunity to raise these issues, whether during
formal proceedings or in the sidelines.
Regional involvement
12.24
Dr George Perkovich told the Committee:
The degree to which Australia can help build coalitions of
non-nuclear-weapon-states, whether geographically or otherwise, to support
concrete measures will have a disproportionate benefit in both the
non-proliferation and disarmament realms. This is an area where Australia
punches above its weight, and it would be great if it continued to do that.[13]
12.25
It was suggested to the Committee that there is also a lot that
Australia can do regionally, perhaps outside UN structures. Both Professor
Joseph Camilleri and Dr Carl Ungerer argued that Australia should be working
much more closely with countries in South-East Asia.[14]
Dr Ungerer considered that Australia could contribute by dealing with some of
the security concerns of states in our region:
Australia should be working much more closely with countries
in South-East Asia who potentially could go down the wrong pathway in this
regard, and pay much closer attention to those issues as well as the China
issue.[15]
12.26
Mr Rory Medcalf similarly commented that:
… there is scope for Australia to take advantage of its
strong diplomatic linkages in Asia to promote nonproliferation and disarmament,
both in terms of support for treaties from countries in the region and of norms
of nuclear restraint.[16]
12.27
Mr Medcalf also saw particular benefit in Australian parliamentarians
becoming more engaged with their counterparts in India, particularly on
non-proliferation issues.[17]
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
12.28
As discussed in chapter two, there are nine states whose ratifications
are required in order to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
into force. Many contributors to the inquiry saw a role for Australia and the
Australian Parliament in promoting entry into force of this Treaty. The
Committee received some very specific suggestions as to action parliamentarians
might take, including:
n privately obtaining
the commitment from other countries that they will ratify the CTBT should US
ratification proceed and that they will not be the impediment to the Treaty
entering into force;[18]
n lobbying counterparts
in the United States; and
n signalling to US
counterparts that Australia fully supports the abolition of nuclear weapons and
does not consider the US would be abandoning its allies by ratifying the CTBT.
12.29
Ms Martine Letts of the Lowy Institute for International Policy argued:
…there are some big opportunities for you to use your
contacts in the US Congress to persuade some of the critical members,
particularly those on the Republican side, that this is something that is long
overdue. [19]
12.30
Mr Rory Medcalf of the Lowy Institute also saw a role for Australia to
contribute to this debate:
…with the election of the Obama administration, there is a
window of opportunity to reduce nuclear dangers and Australia can play a big
role in influencing that debate. That role really should be played out by
Australia lending support to certain voices within the US political debate.[20]
12.31
Parliamentarians might also take such opportunities to express views to
their US counterparts on issues such as moving to lower alert levels for
nuclear forces, further weapons reductions, no first use policies and nuclear
deterrence.[21]
Support for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and
Disarmament
12.32
In its submission, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office suggested that the Committee
could contribute to ICNND by using contacts in overseas parliaments to
encourage support for the Commission’s aim of reinvigorating global nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament efforts.[22]
12.33
Mr Rory Medcalf also saw that parliamentarians could encourage all
governments to advocate and act upon the Commission’s recommendations.[23]
12.34
While ICNND’s recommendations are still to be seen, the Committee
strongly supports ICNND’s mandate and considers that the Australian Parliament
should actively promote the Commission’s work.
Engaging civil society
12.35
There is a role for parliamentarians globally in promoting the ongoing
role of civil society and greater public support for nuclear non-proliferation
and disarmament issues.[24] This includes improving
public education and opportunities for civil society to engage with governments
on these issues.[25] Achieving outcomes in
arms control has often been closely linked with the involvement of civil
society. Parliamentarians have strong links with civil society through their own
constituencies as well as the means to raise these issues in Parliament.
12.36
In his submission, Mr Allan Behm argued that parliament and
parliamentary committees were better able to represent and promote the views of
non-government organisations and interest groups than public service agencies.[26]
12.37
The role that civil society can play in helping to progress major arms
control treaties has been demonstrated on a number of occasions.[27]
Dr Ben Saul of the Sydney Centre for International Law at the University of
Sydney argued in relation to the Clusters Munition and Land Mines treaties:
What was absolutely essential was getting the international
and national civil society on board. Cluster munitions were banned really
because of work of organisations in Australia such as Austcare and
internationally Handicap International. They really drove a global movement to
pressure states. What has been really important about that process is that
because they went outside the convention on conventional weapons it really left
the major powers, who were part of that process and obstructing it, out in the
cold…[28]
12.38
Dr Marianne Hanson also argued that there is a role for parliamentarians
and civil society to play in continuing at every opportunity to raise and push
these issues. As demonstrated with the Cluster Munitions and Land Mines
treaties, such action can have a wide reaching effect. Dr Hanson told the
Committee:
These are being driven by civil society …. Civil society
groups are now driving these issues, precisely because these issues are now
being framed within the humanitarian context … Whether governments like it or
not, I think this kind of influence and input will be here for a while and it
may well get stronger. I think there is something to be said for listening to
those voices and taking on board many of the ideas that they have put forward.
Look at the arms trade treaty and at small arms and light
weapons especially, which kill up to 500,000 a year. We have not seen
governments working strongly enough or quickly enough in these areas. In some
ways what you have is public opinion-civil society expert opinion. … They are
realising that we have to act quickly on this, so they are driving this process
in light of frustration at bureaucratic and government efforts, which have not
been good enough.[29]
12.39
Professor Camilleri emphasised that Governments need to feel that they
have the support of society, not just anti-nuclear groups, but the medical
profession, legal profession, social workers, educators, and others. Like Dr
Saul and Dr Hanson, he argued that these groups have been critical to the
achievement of these treaties.[30]
Parliamentary resolutions and other declarations
12.40
The Hon Gareth Evans AO QC raised the question during evidence to the
Committee as to what would be the best institutional vehicle for mobilising
government and civil society support for nuclear non-proliferation and
disarmament as momentum develops. Options might include the proposed nuclear
weapons convention. Alternatively, Mr Evans raised the idea of a simple one or
two paragraph convention which would embody the declaratory judgement made by
the International Court of Justice that the use of nuclear weapons is against
international humanitarian law. [31]
12.41
Ms Martine Letts of the Lowy Institute for International Policy also
suggested a visionary declaration.[32] Other participants in
the inquiry called for a clear statement from the Parliament on nuclear disarmament.[33]
Professor Camilleri argued that:
…we must put on the table the idea that nuclear weapons are
here to be eliminated…[34]
12.42
The idea of a clear statement of the ultimate objective was raised in
chapter one. The Committee notes that Australia’s position on nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament has remained consistent through different
governments. The Committee would welcome bipartisan support for a resolution in
the Parliament expressing support for the abolition of nuclear weapons. The
declaration might also include:
n a clear call for
nuclear disarmament;
n support for a Nuclear
Weapons Convention; and
n reference to measures
to build confidence such as de-alerting and non first use commitments.
12.43
The Committee calls on other parliaments around the world to also
express support for the abolition of nuclear weapons through support for a
resolution or declaration.
12.44
The Committee considers that there is an important opportunity at the
present time for parliamentarians in Australia and around the world to
contribute to building political will and a commitment to a global approach to
nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament issues.
Recommendation 18 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the Presiding Officers agree
to all outgoing official parliamentary delegations being briefed on nuclear
disarmament and non-proliferation issues, with a mandate to raise these
issues during discussions with other parliamentarians as appropriate.
|
Recommendation 19 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the Presiding Officers agree
to the Parliament’s outgoing delegation program for 2010 being arranged so
that the regular bilateral visit to the United States coincides with the 2010
NPT Review Conference, thus allowing parliamentarians an opportunity to
participate in this Conference.
|
Recommendation 20 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the delegation to the 121st
Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in October 2009 takes this report to
that conference to promote further discussion of nuclear non-proliferation
and disarmament issues.
|
Recommendation 21 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the Parliament adopt a
resolution on the Parliament’s commitment to the abolition of nuclear
weapons.
|
Recommendation 22 |
|
|
The Committee calls on parliaments around the world to
support similar actions to those contained in recommendations 18, 19, 20 and
21.
|
Kelvin Thomson MP
Chair