Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 3549 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We do have to worry about nuclear disarmament. The cold war ended a decade ago, yet there are still 30,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled, with over 5,000 deployed on hair-trigger alert. Plans by the United States to develop a ballistic missile defence are prompting China and Russia to enhance their nuclear capabilities. India and Pakistan are preparing to deploy nuclear weapons following tests in 1998.

The terrorist attacks on the US represent an increased risk of nuclear weapons use as terrorists resort to mass destruction and states become more likely to threaten or use nuclear weapons in response. However, a window of opportunity exists to move toward a comprehensive and verified ban on nuclear weapons. There is thus a need to build political will amongst governments. There is an association of parliamentarians for nuclear disarmament. If anyone is interested in more information, I am happy to give it.

The United States must implement its obligation under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to proceed towards the total and unequivocal elimination of its nuclear arsenal and must not withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile treaty. The US should not set aside either the ABM treaty or its obligations. At a time when the US is working with a broad-based coalition of nations, including Russia and China, in the struggle against terrorism, unilateral withdrawal from an important arms control treaty sends a very negative signal to the rest of the world. Now more than ever the United States should be mindful of its international treaty obligations.

In the post-cold war era it is important to proceed with Russia towards the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear arsenals and immediately remove weapon systems from launch-on-warning status. The agreements proposed for finalising in Moscow and Petersburg on 25 May do not do this. The deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system will make it unlikely that such agreements can be reached. Already the Russian duma has passed a motion urging the Russian government to examine Russian military options in response to the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

The deployment of a US BMD system will also give China a pretext to further upgrade its nuclear missiles from the current 20 single-warhead ICBMs to a system with 200 much more sophisticated warheads. This is not in the security interests of the US.

The deployment of a US BMD system would have been of no utility whatsoever in preventing the terrible events of 11 September. Such a system is of no relevance to the real security needs of the US but diverts vital funding and attention from the measures that are truly required.

It is unfortunate and alarming that the current nuclear posture review of the US seems to assume that nuclear weapons will remain a part of the US strategic posture indefinitely and envisages even the development of new varieties of nuclear weapons. This is directly contrary to US obligations under the NPT as reinforced by the final document of the year 2000 NPT review conference.

There is currently a court challenge to the President's right to have sole authority to override an international treaty, which he did. This court case started on Halloween Day in the US District Court. The case is Dennis Kucinich et al v. George W Bush et al. We watch with interest to see what happens with that challenge to his incredibly frightening power.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .