Iran’s proposed nuclear disarmament resolution is a test for the positions and demands of UN member states
TEHRAN – Since the end of the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapons in the world has dropped dramatically to 15,000 warheads, according to the latest estimates, but taking into account that the explosive and qualitative power of the new nuclear weapons is thousands of times greater than that of old nuclear weapons, the danger of existing weapons to human life and the planet is no less – if not greater – than that of the old weapons in question.
Since the end of the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapons in the world has dropped dramatically to 15,000 warheads, according to the latest estimates, but given that the explosive and qualitative power of new nuclear weapons is thousands of times greater than that of ancient nuclear weapons, the danger of existing weapons for human life and the planet is no less, if not greater, than that of the ancient weapons in question.
Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, all nuclear-weapon States have an obligation to destroy all of their nuclear weapons. In addition, they are legally bound not only to refrain from taking steps to manufacture nuclear weapons, but to refrain from transferring such weapons to other countries, deploying them outside their territory and cooperating with them. other governments to build atomic weapons.
Under pressure and prosecution from non-nuclear-weapon states, nuclear states, after decades of non-compliance with their legal obligations, have again been compelled to take practical and effective measures as part of the outcome documents of nuclear non-proliferation. Treaty review conferences in 1995, 2000 and 2010.
However, a review of existing statistics and realities shows that not only do nuclear-weapon states lack the political will to achieve nuclear disarmament, but also their nuclear activities, including improving the quality of weapons. nuclear weapons, the modernization and increase of the destructive power of these weapons, the increase in the budget of nuclear weapons and the promotion of the status of nuclear weapons in the doctrines of national security, even in violation of international regulations and obligations, created a situation in which the past trend does not show a significant evolution towards nuclear disarmament and it does not appear that there would be such a prospect in the future as well.
It should be noted that in the absence of real nuclear disarmament, the NWS and their allied countries are pursuing a nuclear risk reduction policy which, given its very small scope and the lack of consideration of true nuclear disarmament, it is by no means possible to consider this ostensible policy as an alternative and equivalent to nuclear disarmament.
In response to this situation, since 2005, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the main author of the biennial resolution, entitled “Following the implementation of the obligations agreed at the NPT review conferences in 1995, 2005 and 2010” .
The main objective of this resolution is the implementation of the nuclear disarmament obligations of the NWS under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
The draft of this resolution was first submitted to the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Committee on Disarmament and International Security), and after consideration and initial decision of this committee, the result will be sent to the Committee on Disarmament and International Security. ‘General meeting for final decision.
Below, examining the structure and content of this resolution, possible interpretations of the positions of different countries are examined from the point of view of principle that a vote given to every resolution and proposal in multilateral diplomacy is a test for l examination of the claims with the practical and declarative positions of the countries, and on this basis, the positions and claims of the countries can be verified in various aspects.
Structure and content of the resolution
This resolution comprises nine preambular paragraphs and six operative paragraphs.
The Preamble – referring to previous biennial resolutions, the text of the NPT, the prior approval of the General Assembly to achieve nuclear disarmament, recalling and reaffirming the obligations previously agreed upon at the Review Conferences after the indefinite extension of the Treaty in 1995 and beyond – is concerned about the failure of the last review conference held in 2015.
One of the most important paragraphs in this section is preambular paragraph 6, which focuses on the implementation of the 1995 NPT Review Conference resolution on the establishment of a free zone. nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The 1995 Middle East resolution calls on the Israeli regime to join the NPT and place its nuclear facilities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
What adds to the importance of the 1995 resolution is the obligation of the three co-sponsors of the resolution, including the United States, Britain and Russia, to compel the regime to join the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
In the operative part, he first declares in the first paragraph that the practical measures previously agreed to achieve disarmament in 2000 are still valid, and in the second paragraph, he indicates that he is continuing the practical measures for the implementation of the Treaty Article VI (on nuclear disarmament) and the decision of the 1995 Conference on the Purposes and Principles of Nuclear Disarmament.
Operative paragraph 3 calls on the NWS to accelerate the implementation of their obligations to completely destroy their nuclear arsenal in accordance with the principles of transparency, irreversibility and international control, and to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security doctrines . These countries were also urged to initiate the practical process of achieving nuclear disarmament.
Operative paragraph 4 stresses the need for nuclear-weapon States to provide security guarantees to non-nuclear-weapon States that they will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them.
Finally, in this substantive section, all members of the United Nations are invited to continue to implement the obligations accepted by the nuclear powers in the form of review conferences and preparatory committees for these conferences.
Votes on the draft resolution proposed by Iran
The draft resolution proposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran was last adopted by the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly this year with 108 votes in favor, 44 against and 25 abstentions. Paragraph 6, also voted on separately, was retained by 109 votes in favor, 4 against and 58 abstentions.
In accordance with the rules, decisions of committees of the General Assembly, including the First Committee, are transmitted to the General Assembly as recommendations of the committee until about a month later, the General Assembly , as a higher body, takes a decision in what concerns. Past experience shows that thanks to the consultations of our delegation to attract the favorable vote of those who voted against and abstained and also taking into account the participation of a greater number of members in the decision-making processes of the General Assembly rather than those of the committees, the resolution proposed by Iran will hopefully get more votes in the General Assembly. The results of the last vote of the General Assembly in 2019 show 118 votes in favor, 43 against and 19 abstentions.
As is clear, the comments of UN members on the Iranian proposal can be classified into three groups.
* The majority of the members of the United Nations, in particular the non-nuclear member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement who have always welcomed the proposal, have always supported this resolution. It should be noted that a few of the non-nuclear states generally do not participate in meetings or sometimes in votes.
* A group of countries abstain. They are not nuclear, and although they have political reservations to back Iran’s proposal, they also don’t oppose it and just abstain.
* A negative vote on the preamble paragraph or on the resolution as a whole, in particular by some countries, is questionable. In general, nuclear-weapon States are opposed to any explicit and objective proposal for nuclear disarmament, whoever the author is. The so-called “nuclear umbrella” countries, which have the security guarantees given to them by the nuclear-weapon States, also vote negatively on such proposals to show their political allegiance to the nuclear-weapon States while taking into account the position of nuclear countries. and with the intention of not taking any position that leads to the end of “umbrella support”. In general, the United States, the Israeli regime and Western countries have always been among the opponents of the Iranian proposal. The United States and Israel have consistently called for a vote on preliminary paragraph 6 and the resolution as a whole.
Conclusion and verification of declared positions
As mentioned, any declared position and practical action of countries in international forums can be clear evidence for the verification of these claims. In the specific context of this resolution, the starting point, content, demand and direction of the resolution clearly indicates the need to objectively fulfill disarmament obligations and, in the meantime, the Islamic Republic. Iran, like other non-nuclear-weapon states, has no other interest than to strengthen international peace and security by eliminating one of the existing threats – the existence of nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, the hypocrisy of the positions of Western countries, which always turn a blind eye to the Israeli regime’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and point the finger at the Islamic Republic of Iran, is clarified with a vote on the resolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Because in practice, these countries, while expressing their concern about the danger of proliferation, oppose the real demand for disarmament and the complete destruction of nuclear weapons, and in today’s transparent international community, no one don’t buy such assertions.
At this year’s session of the Committee on Disarmament and International Security, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as in previous years, called the new nuclear arms race and the process of modernizing these weapons an alarming trend and called for that these actions be brought to an end, and declared that he would continue to do so with strong determination. Iran believes that global security is becoming more vulnerable with nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and, therefore, the creation of a safe world requires the complete destruction of these weapons, and, in the foreground, of nuclear weapons. In accordance with this policy, Iran has also proposed the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.