Humanitarian Initiative
Zachary Klein
The Humanitarian Initiative The Humanitarian Initiative (“HI”) is a disarmament
movement which highlights the potential human costs of nuclear weapons. Anchor point: 2010 NPT RevCon Final Document reference to “catastrophic humanitarian consequences.” The HI includes a broad coalition of “middle power” states and civil society organizations
Humanitarian Disarmament Highlighting humanitarian costs of a weapon’s use has
been a potent tool for disarmers Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty (1997) Cluster Munitions Convention (2008)
The “Ottawa Process,” pioneered in MBT negotiations, is
the model for humanitarian disarmament. Generally, successful implementation of this process requires: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Frustration with the existing arms control process Diverse coalition of advocates creating momentum An urgent and visible humanitarian emergency Common, achievable vision addressing the emergency
Frustration Ottawa Process
Humanitarian Initiative
Motivation: Grassroots
Motivation: Success of
anger at casualties in the field (Vietnam/Cambodia) Traditional Machinery: Consensus-based CCW chosen to amend CCW Protocol II on landmines Results: Did not totally prohibit APLs, promoted new, “safer” models
humanitarian disarmament + NPT 2010 RevCon text Traditional Machinery: Consensus-based CD is primary negotiating forum for next “step”: FMCT Results: 15 year deadlock w/ no negotiations, no progress on other issues
Coalition of Advocates Ottawa Process “Core Group” which stage-
managed the process to completion NGOs & Civil Society
Nuclear Disarmament “Humanitarian Initiative”
includes familiar actors in humanitarian disarmament NGOs
ICBL – Umbrella group
ICAN – Umbrella group
which has taken a lead role in organizing the movement ICRC, UN provide legitimacy for fledgling NGOs
which has taken a lead role in organizing the movement ICRC, UN in familiar legitimacy-enhancing role
“Middle Power” States Canada, Austria, Norway, Belgium hosted conferences
“Middle Power” States Norway, Mexico, Austria have hosted conferences
Momentum Ottawa Process
Humanitarian Initiative
Event State (Chronologically involvement )
Event (Chronologicall y)
State involvement
Ottawa Proc. 1
2012 NPT
16 endorse
2012 UNGAFC
35 endorse
Oslo Conf.
127 participate
2013 PrepCom
80 endorse
2013 UNFC
125 endorse
Nayarit Conf.
146 participate
Vienna Conf.
Brussels Conf
MBT signature
50 endorse 71 participate 111 participate
97 endorse 154 participate 122 endorse
Humanitarian Emergency Ottawa Process Emergency underway: 900 Deaths/month 1100 injured/month 2-5 million new landmines per year Concentrated in areas w/o removal expertise/ability Gruesome imagery, availability of victims
Humanitarian Initiative No “every day” impact, the
emergency is serious but speculative Hiroshima/Nagasaki killed 105,000, injured 94,000 Testing responsible for indefinite deaths At any time, NW could potentially kill millions
Common, Achievable Vision? Ottawa Process
Humanitarian Initiative
Goal: Sought unconditional ban
Goal: Consensus on “legally
on APLs with “No reservations. No exceptions. No loopholes.” Achievable?:
binding instrument,” ICAN supports “banning nuclear weapons now.” Achievable?:
Participants and endorsers in
Ottawa process included APL possessors, few producers Verification the responsibility of NGOs – specific violations not catastrophic, easily detected if not attributed
No buy-in from NWS – P5 has
boycotted HI conferences, only Pakistan/India attended Verification will be a huge problem, many suggest seeking commitment without specifics
Impact of Ban Ottawa Process Recorded number of mine
casualties/year dropped from 8,000 to 5,500 APL-possessors destroyed 37 million mines by 2004 Most key landmine producers (US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan) have not signed. Producers have unilaterally
restricted exports and provided assistance for demining
Humanitarian Initiative Ban treaty at this point
would probably attract no NWS Even successful ban doesn’t end the “immitigable” humanitarian danger from even one NW (Oslo) Can’t uninvent NW Probably not true
Conclusions Levels of legitimate frustration and cross-sectoral
collaboration in the HI match the Ottawa Process The significant momentum of the HI is revitalizing interest in nuclear disarmament The humanitarian emergency of past & theoretical future NW use is less compelling than the visceral, recent injuries to APL victims Lack of buy-in from any NWS would make the impact of a ban minimal
Recommendations for the HI De-emphasize Oslo “single use is immitigable”
conclusion Leverage momentum for progress on step-by-step disarmament to clear way for ban talks Demand realistic but concrete measures to minimize humanitarian risk from existing NW De-alerting, open ocean targeting, NFU pledges,
cooperation on consequence management
The Humanitarian Initiative The Humanitarian Initiative (“HI”) is a disarmament
movement which highlights the potential human costs of nuclear weapons. Anchor point: 2010 NPT RevCon Final Document reference to “catastrophic humanitarian consequences.” The HI includes a broad coalition of “middle power” states and civil society organizations
Humanitarian Disarmament Highlighting humanitarian costs of a weapon’s use has
been a potent tool for disarmers Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty (1997) Cluster Munitions Convention (2008)
The “Ottawa Process,” pioneered in MBT negotiations, is
the model for humanitarian disarmament. Generally, successful implementation of this process requires: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Frustration with the existing arms control process Diverse coalition of advocates creating momentum An urgent and visible humanitarian emergency Common, achievable vision addressing the emergency
Frustration Ottawa Process
Humanitarian Initiative
Motivation: Grassroots
Motivation: Success of
anger at casualties in the field (Vietnam/Cambodia) Traditional Machinery: Consensus-based CCW chosen to amend CCW Protocol II on landmines Results: Did not totally prohibit APLs, promoted new, “safer” models
humanitarian disarmament + NPT 2010 RevCon text Traditional Machinery: Consensus-based CD is primary negotiating forum for next “step”: FMCT Results: 15 year deadlock w/ no negotiations, no progress on other issues
Coalition of Advocates Ottawa Process “Core Group” which stage-
managed the process to completion NGOs & Civil Society
Nuclear Disarmament “Humanitarian Initiative”
includes familiar actors in humanitarian disarmament NGOs
ICBL – Umbrella group
ICAN – Umbrella group
which has taken a lead role in organizing the movement ICRC, UN provide legitimacy for fledgling NGOs
which has taken a lead role in organizing the movement ICRC, UN in familiar legitimacy-enhancing role
“Middle Power” States Canada, Austria, Norway, Belgium hosted conferences
“Middle Power” States Norway, Mexico, Austria have hosted conferences
Momentum Ottawa Process
Humanitarian Initiative
Event State (Chronologically involvement )
Event (Chronologicall y)
State involvement
Ottawa Proc. 1
2012 NPT
16 endorse
2012 UNGAFC
35 endorse
Oslo Conf.
127 participate
2013 PrepCom
80 endorse
2013 UNFC
125 endorse
Nayarit Conf.
146 participate
Vienna Conf.
Brussels Conf
MBT signature
50 endorse 71 participate 111 participate
97 endorse 154 participate 122 endorse
Humanitarian Emergency Ottawa Process Emergency underway: 900 Deaths/month 1100 injured/month 2-5 million new landmines per year Concentrated in areas w/o removal expertise/ability Gruesome imagery, availability of victims
Humanitarian Initiative No “every day” impact, the
emergency is serious but speculative Hiroshima/Nagasaki killed 105,000, injured 94,000 Testing responsible for indefinite deaths At any time, NW could potentially kill millions
Common, Achievable Vision? Ottawa Process
Humanitarian Initiative
Goal: Sought unconditional ban
Goal: Consensus on “legally
on APLs with “No reservations. No exceptions. No loopholes.” Achievable?:
binding instrument,” ICAN supports “banning nuclear weapons now.” Achievable?:
Participants and endorsers in
Ottawa process included APL possessors, few producers Verification the responsibility of NGOs – specific violations not catastrophic, easily detected if not attributed
No buy-in from NWS – P5 has
boycotted HI conferences, only Pakistan/India attended Verification will be a huge problem, many suggest seeking commitment without specifics
Impact of Ban Ottawa Process Recorded number of mine
casualties/year dropped from 8,000 to 5,500 APL-possessors destroyed 37 million mines by 2004 Most key landmine producers (US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan) have not signed. Producers have unilaterally
restricted exports and provided assistance for demining
Humanitarian Initiative Ban treaty at this point
would probably attract no NWS Even successful ban doesn’t end the “immitigable” humanitarian danger from even one NW (Oslo) Can’t uninvent NW Probably not true
Conclusions Levels of legitimate frustration and cross-sectoral
collaboration in the HI match the Ottawa Process The significant momentum of the HI is revitalizing interest in nuclear disarmament The humanitarian emergency of past & theoretical future NW use is less compelling than the visceral, recent injuries to APL victims Lack of buy-in from any NWS would make the impact of a ban minimal
Recommendations for the HI De-emphasize Oslo “single use is immitigable”
conclusion Leverage momentum for progress on step-by-step disarmament to clear way for ban talks Demand realistic but concrete measures to minimize humanitarian risk from existing NW De-alerting, open ocean targeting, NFU pledges,
cooperation on consequence management
