UN Security Council unanimously adopts resolution for nuclear disarmament

Agent327

Observer
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
16,102
Location
In orbit
UN council endorses nuclear curbs


President Obama has set nuclear non-proliferation as a key policy

The UN Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution calling for nuclear disarmament, in a session chaired by US President Barack Obama.

The resolution calls for further efforts to stop the spread of nuclear arms, to boost disarmament, and to lower the risk of "nuclear terrorism".
It was the first time US president had chaired a Security Council meeting.
The resolution comes amid growing concerns among western powers over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
It also comes a day after Mr Obama's debut UN speech, in which he warned of a nuclear arms race.
The resolution adopted on Thursday reaffirms the council's commitment "to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons".
It does not specifically mention countries by name, such as North Korea and Iran, but reaffirms previous Security Council resolutions relating to their nuclear plans.
Iran's nuclear programme has been criticised by the US and five nations who are set to hold talks next week.
Iran says its nuclear ambitions are for peaceful energy purposes, but others fear it is developing weapons.




Q&A: Nuclear disarmament
China firm on Iran sanctions
Debuts and diatribes at the UN
UN Assembly: Key Issues
Obama urges world to unite

Also on Thursday, a UN conference on a 1996 treaty banning nuclear bomb tests will begin with a speech by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Her appearance is the first US participation at the biannual conference since 1999 when the US Senate refused to ratify the treaty.
On Wednesday, the first day of the United Nations General Assembly, Iran's plans came under fire.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Iranian leaders were "making a tragic mistake" if they thought the international community would not respond.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned Iran - and North Korea - that the world would be even tougher on proliferation.
In his speech on Wednesday, President Obama said: "For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a super-power stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity.
"If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine."
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signalled that Moscow might be prepared to soften its opposition to sanctions against Iran over its nuclear plans.
But the Chinese foreign ministry has said that increasing pressure on Iran would not be effective.
In his speech, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke of countries which undermined the development of other nations under the pretext of preventing arms proliferation.
Mr Obama said he and Mr Medvedev shared the goal of allowing Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, but not nuclear weapons.

(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8272396.stm)

A historic event, I'd say.

Live video of president Obama's speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kerXQYPGAjc&feature=player_embedded
 
Totally useless, as usual. Why are people even paying attention to that?

"We, in principle, without making any concrete commitment, accept the idea of nuclear disarmament".

Great. So what? :crazyeye:
 
That's good news. I think it's in all our interests to reduce the overall destructive capability of the few nations that possess nuclear weapons. It would add a great deal of credibility in talks with new or potential nuclear powers over their nuclear future.
 
Totally stupid.

...Also, how is this going to lower the risk of "nuclear terrorism"?
 
Aren't we cynical.:rolleyes:

After years of listening to lessons about the UN, its history and its role in the international system, cynicism is the only survival strategy I have left :)

BTW, who are you "quoting"? :confused:

Nobody. I am mocking the tone of the resolution. Jeez, don't tell me you actually think this is significant. UN is a factory mass-producing resolutions, but whether these are observed or not totally depend on political goodwill of its members. Especially if big players are involved. This is all just a bunch of nice talk and kind words for the media, but it won't change a thing on the way nuclear deterrence work. If you think that all countries will suddenly see the light and disarm, I'd have to call you naive ;)
 
Yes, I'm sure OT polls get news coverage all the time... :mischief:

After years of listening to lessons about the UN, its history and its role in the international system, cynicism is the only survival strategy I have left :)

Sorry to hear. But what lessons are you talking about?

Nobody. I am mocking the tone of the resolution. Jeez, don't tell me you actually think this is significant. UN is a factory mass-producing resolutions, but whether these are observed or not totally depend on political goodwill of its members. Especially if big players are involved. This is all just a bunch of nice talk and kind words for the media, but it won't change a thing on the way nuclear deterrence work. If you think that all countries will suddenly see the light and disarm, I'd have to call you naive ;)

Yeah, well it was a rhetorical question. But I'm sure we all appreciate your wisdom in these matters.

-----

Both of you seem to have missed the difference between UN resolutions and UN Security Council resolutions.
 
Sorry to hear. But what lessons are you talking about?

Various courses at the college. I study international relations.

Yeah, well it was a rhetorical question. But I'm sure we all appreciate your wisdom in these matters.

-----

Both of you seem to have missed the difference between UN resolutions and UN Security Council resolutions.

No, actually not. UNSC isn't very useful either these days (if it ever was). What this resolution is about is a proclamation of political will. It can't bring any result if the key members don't follow through - which is what usually happens.
 
I read it differently.

The new measure, UNSC Resolution 1887, expresses the Council’s grave concern about the threat of nuclear proliferation and the need for international action to prevent it. It reaffirms that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery are threats to international peace and security and shows agreement on a broad range of actions to address nuclear proliferation and disarmament and the threat of nuclear terrorism.
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans...90924133000xjsnommis0.7896082.html&distid=ucs


Sounds like Bush to me.
 
What this resolution is about is a proclamation of political will. It can't bring any result if the key members don't follow through - which is what usually happens.

That remains to be seen, doesn't it? In general all resolutions are an expression of will - whether political or not, whether UN or not.
 
That remains to be seen, doesn't it? In general all resolutions are an expression of will - whether political or not, whether UN or not.

Sigh. This resolution reminds me of the 1960s/1970s and the promises to end hunger in the Third World. You could just as well pass a resolution calling for a nice weather for the rest of the year :)

If there is no enforcement, any such resolution is toothless and essentially useless and redundant.
 
You must know very well that the UN is not a supranational organization and even the Security Council is dependent on the cooperation of its members. (Not that I am pleading for the UN to be supranational, to be sure.) You may be mocking the end result or even the resolution itself, but if you'd have seen or watched the president's speech it clearly states it is a starting point. In point of fact, I'd say reducing the number of nuclear arms in the world can more easily be obtained than eliminating hunger, so I don't quite agree wit such a comparison.
 
they should pass a non-binding resolution that genocide is really, really mean.

that would solve the world's problems
 
Sigh. This resolution reminds me of the 1960s/1970s and the promises to end hunger in the Third World. You could just as well pass a resolution calling for a nice weather for the rest of the year :)

If there is no enforcement, any such resolution is toothless and essentially useless and redundant.

I agree.
 
If there is no enforcement, any such resolution is toothless and essentially useless and redundant.

Exactly. This is why the UN needs to be given the ability to enforce its resolutions independent of support from its member nations. Give the UN some teeth and some actual political power without having to rely on its member nations, and maybe the world will become just a little more pleasant to live in.
 
Under present circumstances it is already quite a feat that an international court can function to prosecute human rights violations. Granting the UN powers beyond those of its member nations' would be the beginning of the end of the UN, as nations would pass up membership. (The US under the previous administration for instance refused to recognize the court's authority; under previous US administrations subsidies were withdrawn because of conditions deemed unfavourable to the US, an example that has not been followed by such nations as the Russian Federation or the People's Republic of China, despite the fact that they could plead similar circumstances.) The degree to which the UN's authority can or should supersede national authority has been a dilemma since the initial Charter was proclaimed.

they should pass a non-binding resolution that genocide is really, really mean.

that would solve the world's problems

Genocide is a crime under international law and can be prosecuted before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
 
Top Bottom