UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION EDINBURGH

“Nuclear Disarmament” and “Building Trust Between Nations”

Events at the Scottish Parliament: November 2013

These events were sponsored by MSP Bill Kidd, Convenor, Cross Party Group for Nuclear Disarmament, the Scottish Parliament.

IntroductionIn 2012, sponsored by Malcolm Chisholm MSP., UNA Edinburgh held a one-day Conference in the Scottish Parliament to promote the initiation of a Middle East Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The Conference was opened by Bruce Crawford MSP, Cabinet Secretary, on behalf of the Scottish Government and it was graced by their Excellencies the Ambassadors of Finland and Turkey, by several NGOs notably, the ELN, VERTIC, PalThink (Gaza), UNA Iran and UNA Syria. There were a hundred active participants.

Permit us to quote two paragraphs from the detailed, multi-page report produced by Dr. Rebecca Johnson,

“….We should also express our gratitude to Finland and especially to Under Secretary Laavaja for their assiduous efforts to address the difficult security issues.

“Civil society as well as governments can do more to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons and programmes – not only in the Middle East region, but also in our own countries. The Edinburgh Conference overwhelmingly deplored the UK’s policies and operations regarding nuclear weapons and Trident replacement, noting that these were imposed on Scotland against the wishes of a large majority of Scottish people as well as their elected government. …”

Contrary to the expressed wish of the UN’s Review of the NPT, in 2012 governments postponed the conference to in initiate a Middle East Free of WMD more or less indefinitely. This decision reminds us that UNA still operates in a world where “We the Peoples” are always liable to be rebuffed, unable even to assist in the painstaking work necessary in drawing up programmes to fulfil the stated aims of the UN.

In November 2013, grateful for the sponsorship of Bill Kidd MSP, the Convenor of the Cross Party Group for Nuclear Disarmament, UNA was able to start again - from the beginning as it were. At lunch time on November 1st Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Chairman of UNA-UK and formerly the UK Ambassador to the UN addressed “The UN in a changing world : the issues that matter” and Dr. Gari Donn JP, Convenor of UNA Scotland, described the General Assembly’s autumn debate on disarmament that she and Malcolm Spaven had recently attended. The present Report will show how, in starting from the beginning, Jeremy Greenstock emphasized that UNA’s greatest problems grew from the contemporary abrogation of global responsibility. Gari Donn was clearly troubled. She had witnessed a General Assembly in which the Nuclear Powers were gratified by the

step-by-step success of their efforts at nuclear disarmament but who were nevertheless scorned by the majority of the world’s states who now inhabited nuclear-free zones. UNAE had started again at the beginning and on the evening of November 20th a meeting of ~100 active participants followed this up by discussing “Building Trust Between Nations”. We report how they were led by Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s Minister for External Affairs, and by Ambassadors Alexander Kramarenko and Witold Sobkow who described Russia and Poland’s Foreign and Security Policies. This was indeed progress. Not so many years ago the idea that we could be watching a Minister for External Affairs sitting in the same Committee Room, listening to Ambassadors from Russia and Poland discussing together in a civilized manner their countries’ Security Policies would have been absurd, if not ludicrous. If in 2012 we got our face slapped, this present Report shows how in 2013 we began to consider the limitations to progress.

2013 Programme

November 1st: The Scottish Parliament, Committee Room 2:Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Chair UNA UK, former UK Ambassador to the UN “The UN in a changing world: the issues that matter”Dr Gari Donn JP, Convenor UNA Scotland, “Nuclear Disarmament at the UN General Assembly, 2013”

November 20th, The Scottish Parliament, Committee Room 1Welcome; Bill Kidd MSPChair: The Reverend George Grubb, former Lord Provost of Edinburgh Humza Yousaf MSP Minister for External Affairs “Building Trust Between Nations” Ambassador Alexander Kramarenko, Minister-Councillor, the Russian Embassy “Russian Foreign and Security Policy” Ambassador Witold Sobkow, the Embassy of the Republic of Poland “Poland’s Foreign Policy including its Security Policy” Session 2Chair Dr Gari Donn JP, Convenor, UNA Scotland Questions, Answers and points of view Summary Refreshments

Reports of the two events

NOVEMBER 1st

Sir Jeremy Greenstock; the UN in a changing world: the issues that matter How is the world changing, Jeremy Greenstock asked. What are the below-the- surface changes that the UN faces in the 21st Century?

First, the world has seen an increase in the number of accepted sovereign states and this has implied an increase in freedom – both individual freedom and national independence – and equality. At the same time, ‘globalization ‘ has implied faster communication, a freer flow of ideas, of cross border transactions and increased economic integration. This is partly illusory. Whereas it is often thought that globalization has made travel and access to resources easier, Jeremy Greenstock recalled how travel to Africa used to be simpler and easier. “ World politics has become much more about identity politics,” he said. “. In Scotland it comes from a stronger feeling of Scottish identity and wanting to project that into the world”. Discussion of identity politics brought one to the heart of the changing world. Politics now works in the opposite direction to globalization. Since states were losing control of global issues they were consequently trying to retain their legitimacy and political authority by turning away, localizing congealing national sovereignty and neglecting feelings of international and global responsibility. Not only were nation states becoming weaker in their reach, appeal and power, international institutions were becoming weaker as complex, ad hoc approaches to problem solving were adopted and ad hoc forums such as the G20 were created.

Our aims in this changing world devolve from the UN Charter; peace, international development, human rights and sustainability. The UN provides the legitimacy and the structure for the discussion of the aims and for the leadership and, if necessary, the compromises that may be needed for their achievement. It is necessary to understand the limits to self determination and accept the need for global responsibility. Our representatives have to bridge the local and the global.

Dr. Gari Donn: Nuclear Disarmament at the UN General Assembly 2013

Dr. Gari Donn attended the high level meeting on nuclear disarmament at the UN Headquarters in New York in September 2013. She mentioned her disappointment that it is only after 67 years since the first meeting on nuclear disarmament in 1946, that we have the first High Level Meeting. This reflects the hitherto lack of seriousness by the international community on the matter of nuclear disarmament.

At the High Level Meeting the three pillars of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review were re-stated. Non-proliferation, Nuclear Disarmament and the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Weapons continue to be seen as the three most important and pressing issues to be addressed. She noted that many countries, especially the Non Aligned Movement, are challenging the post-Second World War consensus approach to nuclear weapons. No

longer are ‘security’ and ‘peace’ seen as beholden to the possession of nuclear weapons. No longer is strength acquired by possession of weapons of mass destruction. Rather, she noted, the opposite seemed to be the case - and is fast becoming the case in the vast majority of countries at the UN GA. The historical ‘strength’ of the P5 and others possessing nuclear weapons – India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea – now seem to be seen more as countries with the ability to ‘de-stabilize’ global politics.

She ended her talk by noting that whereas the P5 countries wish the agenda of nuclear non-proliferation to be the dominant discourse – with plans and policies for step by step incremental reduction of numbers of weapons – by far the majority of our world’s countries support the discourse of disarmament. They - at the UN Open Ended Working Group - and their supporting NGOs, argue that only through disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons can humanitarian concerns ever be addressed and realized. States Parties and NGOs seem to be saying that now is the time for the discourse of disarmament to become dominant and for it to define a new ‘security’ agenda: it is only through international support for a realignment in what it means to be ‘secure’, that we move to a sustainable future.

Recorded by: Nikki Sharma

NOVEMBER 20th

Building Trust Between Nations

1.) Welcome: Bill Kidd MSP

-Introduction of key speakers, below:

Co-Chair: The Reverend Dr. George Grubb, former Lord Provost of Edinburgh and Convenor UNA Edinburgh and Dr. Gari Donn, Executive Director UN House Scotland and Convenor UNA Scotland

After the introductions made by Bill Kidd, The Reverend Dr. George Grubb welcomed the audience and introduced the topic of “building trust between nations.”

2.) Introduction on behalf of the Scottish Government: The Minister for External Affairs, Humza Yousaf

“Building Trust Between Nations”

-Humza Yousaf broke the ice with football chat, expressing gratitude for the presence of the two Ambassadors as well as to UNA Scotland and UN House Edinburgh. He went on to discuss the strong political, philosophical history of Scotland, citing prominent figures including Adam Smith, David Hume, and John Livingstone. He emphasized the need for Scotland to embrace its role in the present, and not to be confined and defined by its contributions made in the past. The Minister discussed the implications of a potentially independent Scotland, highlighting the need for discussion around such questions as: What will be the legacy of this country? How can Scotland contribute to a nuclear free world? He concluded by acknowledging the obligation of us all to bring our children into a more peaceful, trustful, less hostile world.

3.) Ambassador Alexander Kramarenko, Minister-Councillor, Embassy of Russia in the UK

“Building Trust Between Nations: Russian Foreign Policy”

-Ambassador Kramerenko began by addressing the transformations the world is experiencing due to the forces of globalization. He acknowledged the world to be in a state of flux, citing the revolutionary example of the Arab Spring as a testament to the possibility that at the moment there is no clear status quo. This makes all the more pressing the need for a common view of our historical era among leading international entities. With all the changes and the dynamism of the past 30 years we have learned many lessons, and it is now time to determine in which direction to proceed. Ambassador Kramarenko emphasized the need for global problems to be resolved on the basis of trust, making the relationships between nations key.

- Ambassador Kramarenko brought up the issue of ideologies, stating that markets and democracy are the current ideologies. But he also raised questions: What kind of market? How can we move towards a sustainable market economy? What type of democracy? How can genuine democracy be promoted? He emphasized that how we answer these questions will be pivotal in determining the course of the future.

-He highlighted the need for collective leadership among global ‘powers’ (sensitive about this word), not allowing strategic traditions to block and hinder real progress. It was important to determine what kind of developmental model is sustainable given current circumstances. Collective leadership and trust between nations were essential in order to address this meaningfully.

-The end of the Cold War didn’t depreciate the relevance of the UN system. The UN is pivotal in addressing and directing the needs of the international community. Networked diplomacy needs to be accepted and embraced as the main method of diplomacy amidst current circumstances. NATO will be problematic, moving forward as it disregards major military issues. There was too much mental space occupied by military thinking among Western allies.

-Addressing the current financial crisis, The Ambassador stated that the outcome of the present situation will make things clearer and provide a platform to determine a sustainable path forwards.

-Russia held a firm belief in multilateral diplomacy (G8 and G20 summits), citing President Obama’s visit to Russia as a successful example in that his discussion with President Putin produced a relatively peaceful procedure of moving towards the chemical disarmament of Syria. The Ambassador was optimistic about the future of international relations. He cited the case of Syria as an example of a challenge which could only be genuinely resolved through diplomacy.

-Ambassador Kramerenko concluded by reinforcing the strong bilateral relationship between Scotland and Russia.

4.) HE Witold Sobkow, Ambassador, the Embassy of Poland in the UK

“Polish Foreign Policy post-1989, Including Security Policy”

- Ambassador Sobkow began by describing the many changes that occurred in Poland Post-1989, highlighting this as a crucial moment to define Poland’s foreign policy agenda and aims, which were three:

*Establish good neighbouring relationships with the 7 countries territorially surrounding Poland

-With 7 new neighbouring countries it was important to negotiate treaties of friendship and to settle any pre-existing disputes. This was now accomplished.

*Gain membership of the European Union

- Ambassador Sobkow joked that Poland’s involvement with NATO is a love affair, whereas its membership of the EU is a marriage of convenience.

- Poland’s presence in the EU is about certain, specific interests and comes alongside heavy political pressures and complicated negotiations.

-Poland joined the EU in 2004 and held a referendum before it did so.

*Gain membership of NATO

-Poland is a pro-American country. Its membership in NATO is about security. Poland joined NATO in 1990 without a referendum.

-After achieving these three goals, what would come next? Poland’s focus shifted towards serving national interests. It sees eye to eye with the UK on such issues as market liberalization, competition, deregulation, etc. One point of dissonance between Poland and the UK is that Poland would like to see more political integration within the EU, whereas the UK seemingly would not. Poland has faith in the EU to strengthen common interests and policies, stating that cohesion contributed to addressing shared struggles for justice.

-In terms of military direction, Poland expresses its interest in modernizing military forces (drones and naval modernization), emphasizing the need for the military to adjust to challenges of the 21st century. Ambassador Sobkow discussed the future of NATO in Poland, asking the questions: what should be done in 2014 about post-war Afghanistan and Iraq? How can transatlantic unity and partnership be maintained as the US begins to turn its orientation away from Europe and towards Asia?

-Ambassador Sobkow concluded by emphasizing the need for relations of credibility and trust between nations. He stated that NATO and the EU should have complementary roles to increase efficiency. It is unwise to duplicate energies, and it is time to rationalize the defence industry. Bilateral cooperation will be key, but Poland also has a firm belief in multilateral organizations and diplomatic structures, particularly the UN. Poland does advocate nuclear disarmament, but it is important to also look at controlling conventional weapons and taking further steps towards chemical disarmament. Poland advocates transparency, partnerships, and dialogue as the international community continues to move forward into the 21st century.

*Concluding remarks by Dr. Gari Donn:

Dr. Donn expressed gratitude for the dedication of each country to confidence building and dialogue as pathways towards disarmament. She strongly emphasized the need for civil society in global governance and peace-making processes, and acknowledged that movement towards trust building between nations was evident. She described the three pillars of nuclear disarmament: non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, highlighting the fact that all three pillars depend upon dialogue, communication, and trust between nations.

5.) Participant Views, Question and Answer Session

1. Carlos: “Why are the Baltic/other Nordic countries distrustful of Russia?”

Ambassador Kramarenko:

o There is a lingering issue of trust but not fear.

o There has been the end of ‘Western’ (historically western, from the world wars) domination of politics

o At the end of the Cold War, no one knew what would happen

o Need to refute that Russia is to blame for all the evils around the CW era.

o As long as the military exists, it will function – as is true with markets.

o It is important that we see the decline of the historically ‘Western’ domination of political and economic directions of international development models

o The dire need for investment in human capital (health, education, welfare, etc.) is the reason why the current paradigm will fail

2. “During the Cold War what society knew about its government was very limited. Have the contributions made by Julian Assange and Edward Snowden made civil society more equipped to handle the threats of modern society and democratic/economic structures, and is this a positive thing?”

Humza Yousaf MSP

o Sharing information and technologies is, or at least can be, a positive thing. Need to avoid essentialising technology, either way

o Technology and information strengthen the relationship between civil society and government, thereby contributing to efforts towards disarmament

o We live in an age where information is not as secure, but it is true that governments need a way to keep sensitive information secure.

o Q: ‘So is it good to have leaks?”

The cases of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden acted as a wake up call to governments and how they conduct business, and can be an opportunity for change and transparency.

Ambassador Kramarenko:

o Whether this is good or bad depends on the reaction of nations and governments—they should not try to resist what has happened

o We live in a society where important things are known

o There isn’t anything that won’t come out sooner or later, so secrecy is pointless

o Q: “So Israel should tell the world what nuclear weapons they have?”

It is not our place to say what another country should do.

Only history will tell if they made the right decision.

3. “There is a problem if we think the road to peace is through NATO as it is a vehicle for US foreign policy and caught in a Cold War time warp. How do we see the role of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) in foreign policy adapting to a multi-polar model rather than the current uni- or bi- polar world?”

Ambassador Kramarenko:

o It is not countries that pose challenges to peace; it’s phenomena. Countries are unable to agree on phenomena.

o The countries that have entered NATO did so at a time when it was a choice to create peace

o NATO is a group of countries that are like-minded on monetary and financial topics, but amidst the possibility of a changing global currency BRICS has the potential to be significant.

o At a time of empires, BRICS is not an alliance. It is a group of like-minded nations, with which, on most topics, Russia is on the same page.

4. “What is the importance of including young people in policy spaces to enhance trust between nations? How much presence are young people given in policy spaces?

HE Ambassador Witold Sobkow:

o Young people are very important when building new policies to create trust as they are not held back by the legacy of past conflict.

o Youth bring a new dimension to the debate, and their presence is precious

o Young people’s participation and dedication to create solutions to long-standing problems hindering peace and reconciliation is visible

Ambassador Kramarenko:

o In agreement with HE Ambassador Witold Sobkow

o Young people have enough convictions to play a significant role, however, it is important to also acknowledge the intensive requirements and demands placed on young people within the political system

o The future is theirs so they should be a part of its creation.

5. Isabella: 1) “With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US took nuclear weapons from the soviet satellites. Was this supporting sovereignty or in the name of security?” 2) “If Scotland were to remove all of its nuclear weapons, would this have an effect on the disarmament movement?”

Ambassador Kramarenko:

o Any move in the direction of disarmament is a positive one.

o However, this would not necessarily have a domino effect because Scotland making this step would have no impact on the reasons why particular nations have nuclear weapons in the first place.

o There is peace because there is a balance of power. In the past, deterrence was a balancing mechanism. For disarmament to occur, China, the US, and Russia must give up their weapons together, or at least establish a new balancing mechanism.

6. Michael Derrington: 1) “As carbon fuels lead to conflict as they are a scarce resource, do you take climate change into consideration while discussing disarmament? Is it useful to create emission targets in Russia and Poland? It is reassuring to hear that Russia has a focus on “network diplomacy” rather than “military alliances,” and if we try to identify a “common view of the historical era” that we live in then would we agree that tackling climate change is an international concern?

2) This relates to the building trust theme as the “sustainable markets” that we collectively seek rely on energy creation. At the same time as aiming for carbon reduction, we can identify energy sources with specific conflicts. On one hand, we have oil and gas in Iraq, while on the other hand we must acknowledge the close relationship and fine line between peaceful and militant uses of nuclear power—something well illustrated by the dangerous debacle over Iranian nuclear energy use. With carbon reduction an imperative, incentivised by conflict avoidance, what targets are there for the development of renewable energy sources?

Ambassador Kramarenko:

-Russia welcomes an agreement that does not use climate change as a weapon, as the prospect of military exacerbation of climate change is unthinkable.

-In terms of carbon reduction, energy efficiency is the prime development need, and with reservations re China’s commitment to this, further international agreement is needed on diversified carbon reduction measures.

-Environmental issues do play a key role in foreign policy talks, especially with increasing displacement, the emergence of ‘climate refugee’, and the looming threat that some countries may not exist following rising sea levels.

-The biggest issue is a lack of funds and national/international commitments towards investing into sustainable technology in order to substantively reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change.

6.) Close of Event

7.) Reception

Rapporteur Convener: Katherine Baxter, PhD Candidate at the University of Edinburgh

Rapporteurs: Fanny Franov and Andrea Cockerill, Undergraduate Students at the University of Edinburgh