If the proceedings of the IAEA General Conference here in Vienna are anything to go by, President Obama will have his work cut out for him over the next months leading up to the May 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference. A more accommodating US position on many items on the IAEA agenda, in particular on the resolution dealing with safeguards in the Middle East, did not deter the Arab delegations from pushing their agenda to put the spotlight on Israel.

The group of Arab states pushed for a vote on a contentious resolution on Israeli nuclear capability, which succeeded narrowly with 49 votes in favour, 45 against and 16 abstentions (also, a record number of delegations left the room to avoid voting)*. The somewhat undignified gloating by the Arab group about the result and its attempts to insert contentious text into the other resolutions put a bad taste in everyone's mouths — the usually low profile Chinese got mad when the Arabs tried to inject their agenda into the traditional DPRK resolution, which led the group of Arab countries to beat a hasty retreat.

Even Iran decided that discretion was the better part of valour and withdrew its controversial resolution on attacks on nuclear facilities in favour of a presidential statement by the New Zealand Conference President, Ambassador Jennifer Macmillan.

What does all this portend for the 24 September UN nuclear summit and the 2010 NPT Review conference? The message to the US and the West is, 'we don't care how accommodating you are, we want the situation in the Middle East to be front and centre of all multilateral deliberations on nuclear issues for the foreseeable future'. 

Dan Flitton's news story in The Age about the split between Japanese and other members of the ICNND over 'no-first-use' was interesting enough if you are into a bit of informed scuttlebutt. 

Far more interesting was Dan's op-ed, also in today's Age, where he points out that Australia too is in a difficult spot when it comes to its reliance on the US nuclear deterrent. While perhaps not as vocal as Japan, Australia's Defence White Paper makes clear that we too expect to rely on extended deterrence for some time. 

There may not yet be much serious scenario-planning going on in Canberra for a world becoming freer and ultimately free of nuclear weapons. But as the op-ed points out, one, our defence budget could become a whole lot more expensive in a world where deep cuts have been made and long before complete nuclear disarmament. And two, the consequences for Japan's future choices about a nuclear weapon of its own in the absence of the US umbrella are worth thinking about. 

For three, can I recommend Dan's piece for entertainment value? He describes how Canberra's diplomatic community surged toward the canapés and drinks after Minister Smith's speech on Australia and disarmament, ignoring the protest of the Iranian Ambassador about Smith who, as the Ambassador saw it, had unfairly put Iran and North Korea in the same basket of rogues. 

Was the audience fleeing from the Iranian Ambassador, or were they seeking sustenance in food and drink because they got none from the speech? 

Photo by Flickr user jamestraceur, used under a Creative Commons license.

In his 93rd year, Robert McNamara was still engaged in the public policy debate as a prominent and outspoken presence at a briefing given last February in Washington at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace by the co-chairs of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), former Australian and Japanese Foreign Ministers Gareth Evans and Yoriko Kawaguchi. 

The Commission had just concluded its second meeting and the co-chairs reported on their meetings with senior figures of the new US Administration, including Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser GEN Jim Jones. They had been very encouraged by the commitment of the Obama Administration to the goal of nuclear disarmament, with specific steps in mind as to how it would proceed down this path. 

This, they said, built on the momentum generated in the US by two Wall Street Journal articles co-authored by the so-called 'Four Horsemen', former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary Bill Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn. Evans and Kawaguchi also reported on the moving presentation given to the Commission the day before by three Japanese survivors of the US nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At the end of the introductory briefing McNamara immediately got to his feet to say that he did not believe the Four Horsemen believed in disarmament. He encouraged Evans and Kawaguchi to challenge them to restate their commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons because he was convinced that they did not really mean it. After the meeting he was still heard discussing his matter with members of the audience.

Why are more men than women visible in international relations, especially as analysts and commentators? As noted by Amy, visibility is important: role models will be a factor in helping young people make a decision about what they choose to study. That said, and absent a burning sense of vocation, my guess is that young people will give at least equal weight to studying subjects which enhance their prospects for employment.

Still, it is puzzling that women in the developed world are not as visible in the international policy world as they are in other professions. Women have made some serious inroads in the law and medicine and in the world of business and board rooms, though even here the ratios are not something to boast about.

I suspect the answer lies in part in the way international policy is thought and written about. read more

At the Lowy Institute we have been saddened by the news of the untimely death of a highly valued colleague and Lowy Institute author, Andrew Symon. Several of us got to know Andrew over the past 18 months through the production of a highly-regarded publication he authored for the Institute on Nuclear Power and South-East Asia.

His understanding of Southeast Asia was held in great esteem, and his work for the Institute has been, and continues to be, read and appreciated widely in the foreign policy community in Australia and internationally, including by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), co-chaired by former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans and former Foreign Minister of Japan, Yoriko Kawaguchi.

Through this, and his many other publications, he has a made a contribution to international policy-making and to the peaceful development of the region he knew and loved.

Sam's post is rather unfair on UN Ambassador Robert Hill. Other sources say that the Australian UN Security Council push is, in fact, in full swing and that Robert Hill is investing a great deal of energy into it, in New York and through a tour of African capitals. This has been low key — so far — but not slow. 

Perhaps more germane is the fact that New York Permanent Representatives play an important role in deciding their countries’ vote, and that they will vote for the personality of the Ambassador as much as they will vote for the country. It makes sense, therefore, to send to New York an Ambassador whose period of assignment might safely be assumed to encompass the two-year Security Council term from 2013-2014, should Australia be elected.  It was never likely that Robert Hill would stay in New York until 2014. 

And while we are on the subject of the Australian Security Council strategy, Australia should remember the important Latin American vote, with 21 countries forming a powerful electoral group. Our experience from the last unsuccessful bid for the Security Council in 1996 also showed the important role the Vatican played in supporting Portugal’s success.

Was this why Tim Fischer was sent as Ambassador to the Vatican? Perhaps not, but his skills will come in useful in Rome, as will his personal enthusiasm for and connections with Latin America, where he was always a big hit.

Polling in Australia, including the 2008 Lowy Poll, shows an evolution in Australian thinking about nuclear power and other things nuclear. The Australian reported with some fanfare on 7 January findings from UMR Research that 1 in 5 Australians believes nuclear energy will provide most of the nation’s electricity in 20 years. 

But the survey also reported that more than 1 in 4 Australians (26%) believe solar energy will supply most of Australia’s power and electricity in 2028. This suggests more Australians believe our base load electricity will be supplied by technology yet to be a proven provider of base load power, than the technology which is already a known source of base load power, but which is far riskier. 

The Lowy Institute’s 2008 Poll showed Australians are increasingly attuned to the case for nuclear power, given the urgent need to meet the twin demands of lowering the global carbon footprint and the world’s growing energy needs. More...

Thank you to the Sun-Herald of 17 August for a memory jogger with the latest goss on what’s happening with the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament-ICNND for short-until someone can find a catchier name. It reports (no link available) on the 'new mini-empire' that an emaciated DFAT has been forced to establish and staff to cater for its needs.  

It’s a worry to think that the Commission’s Secretariat is being financed from within (none) existing DFAT resources, on which we have signalled our concern in previous blog posts.

On the positive side of the ledger, the system seems to be gearing up to get the work of the Commission rolling, even though we do not yet know who the members of the International Commission are More...

In a previous blog post I said it was time to take the work on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation from the second track diplomatic circuit directly to the world’s political leadership. The recent Rudd announcement does not quite get us there, notwithstanding Gareth Evans’ experience and qualifications for leading such an exercise. Some commentators have rightly observed the proposal suffers from lack of preparation both as to who will serve on the panel, and how we obtain critical diplomatic support in key capitals, including Washington, New Delhi, Moscow, Islamabad, London, Paris and perhaps even Tel Aviv. There is also a high risk of duplication of existing work in Washington and New Delhi. And where will the Secretariat for the Commission come from? Will it be outsourced to a group of talented volunteers?  More...

Here's an alternative take on the idea of institutionalising the Six-Party Talks as a regional security mechanism. Nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation have not been prominent in the international policy priorities emphasised so far by the Prime Minister during his visit to the US and the UN. This is at a time that the idea of nuclear disarmament is experiencing a revival in US policy circles, and at a time where nuclear proliferation pressures are building in the Middle East and North Asia.

The Six-Party Talks have their origins in persuading North Korea to forswear nuclear weapons. Viewed from that perspective, the Prime Minister’s support for a regional mechanism based on the Six-Party Talks, which flows from a nuclear disarmament objective, is positive. An East Asian region free of nuclear tensions is directly relevant to Australian interests. A healthy and robust global non-proliferation system is also directly relevant to Australia's security interests and to our status as one of the world's major suppliers of uranium with ambitions to export more.

Almost exactly a year after their first op-ed, 'A World Free of Nuclear Weapons', appeared in the Wall street Journal, former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Senator Sam Nunn and other leading security experts have published a second op-ed, again in the Wall Street Journal, entitled 'Toward a World Free of Nuclear Weapons'. It identifies some concrete steps for making progress in that direction. The second op-ed lists an impressive array of 14 former Secretaries of State, Defense, and National Security Advisors, as well as a number of new 'endorsers'. More...

In 'The re-emergence of an Australian nuclear weapons option?', Richard Tanter appears to have carefully deconstructed my contribution to the Lowy Institute's Voters’ Guide and put it back together again through the rather artificial conceit of a ‘realist’ approach to international relations, which leads to some wrong conclusions about what my article really means. 

He states that my brief is directed at an incoming Rudd administration.  Not so. The Voters’ Guide is intended to highlight some of the approaching policy challenges for whoever wins on 24 November. In light of the polls, Richard Tanter may be right in thinking that a future Australian government will be led by Kevin Rudd. Our Voters’ Guide makes no such assumption and neither do I.  More...