UN Security Council

On Thursday morning, I sat in on the UN Security Council session on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.  The session served a follow up to last month’s nonproliferation talks in Seoul and opened with an address from the Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon.  Delegates from the fifteen member states read long-winded speeches, reiterating their countries’ stances on Japan’s Fukushima reactor accident and nuclear power plant safety, regional disarmament and nuclear free zones, fissile material trafficking, and North Korea condemnation.  Beyond the defense of national ambitions and broad generalizations (like China saying, “We support peace and stability”), only Germany pushed for a new treaty – a fissile missile cut-off treaty to leverage the progress from the US/Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and take a proactive next step in weapons disarmament (the US later purposefully singled out an  “unnamed” country for blocking the efforts to progress with the cut-off treaty).

During the session, Colombia proudly encouraged others to follow the example of Latin America’s regional nuclear free zone.  Morocco denounced the political infighting stalling disarmament progress.  India articulated a desire for a permanent seat on the nuclear material import/export committee.  China suggested that dialogue is the only way to resolve all the world’s problems and to promote peace on the Korean Peninsula.  Russia announced a pilot program aimed at decreasing the trafficking of radioactive substances and extended the need for increased safety at nuclear power plants. 

Most interesting were the small countries, who voiced no fear in arguing more pointed themes at the round table.  Togo passionately pushed for international support for developing countries to obtain, monitor, and use nuclear material for medical and energy purposes.  Azerbaijan expressed fears of “outdated Soviet Era reactors” in neighboring Armenia’s power plants.  Pakistan then defended its own construction of two new nuclear power plants and said that it would not accept “unrealistic” strategies for disarmament.  Guatemala condemned the Security Council’s heavyweights for “watering down” and “distilling documents” after reaching collaborative verbal agreements in Seoul.  Strangely missing from the entire day’s discussion was any mention of India’s long-range missile test launch the previous night.  There were no objections about the Indian Agni 5 missile from Pakistan and no qualifying nor acknowledging messages from India, China, the US, or anyone.  The Asian arms race remained an elephant in the room.

UN Security Council Delegates Filing Out.
Photography during the session was prohibited.

Throughout the entire Security Council meeting, while delegates read their pre-written political speeches, there was no official open discussion.  However, busy staff members flowed freely in and out of whispering conversations to members on all sides of the round table’s open room.  Translators' voices channeled calm British accents into the earpiece radios given to everyone in the Council's chambers.  Publicly, political band-standing served as an opportunity to get statements on official record.  In reality, the Security Council meeting acted mainly as an excuse for powerful politicians to network in the same room at the same time, much like any professional conference.  While displaying a façade of transparency, all substantive discussion and negotiation happened “behind closed doors” in staff/aid side conversations.  At the meeting’s close, the Council read a joint statement drafted during the session.  With broad strokes, the statement reaffirmed past resolutions from previous summits.  Neither the drafting nor the contents of the statement had been publically discussed on the open floor. 

UN Security Council