Now I become Death, the destroyer of worlds
– Robert Oppenheimer
After the ludic topic from the morning, the delegates represented the epitome of professionalism by tackling the first serious subject on the agenda: peaceful nuclear disarmament.
The countries’ beginning statements illustrated the need to reduce the nuclear stockpiles or even create a future in which these destructive weapons were disassembled entirely. China, the Red Cross, The Holy Seat and the Australian delegates expressed their ideas in a very precise manner: a future in which nuclear weapons exist, is a dark and dim future, not only it’s not secure, but is also dangerous for the entire human civilization. Remarkably, Syria maintained the general line and the desire to cooperate with the International Community. On the other hand, Venezuela and Russia took the pragmatic approach of using the nuclear power as a mean to boost the ever-increasing electric demand.
The debate continued with the importance of the Non Proliferation Treaty and its success in limiting the usage of nuclear power in military and civilian affairs. Since the delegation of Italy proposed the moderated talks, it was soon identified that the biggest problem for them was the fact that the treaty was not universally signed, whereas for the delegation of Australia the major issue was that it was non-binding, raising the concern of North Korea and Iran. All thing said, the major statement came from the delegation of United Kingdom who said that even if it’s not perfect, the NPT represents a cornerstone and a step forward in dealing with the nuclear disarmament.
Next topic on the agenda was the proposal of Russian Federation regarding the finding of a mutual solution to deal with nuclear terrorism. This time, the Australian delegation crossed the T’s and placed the dots on I’s when he stated that the possibility of the terrorist organizations to obtain nuclear weapons is drastically limited; instead, the delegates should focus on the matter of “dirty bombs”, devices that are able to chemically pollute an area, without necessarily destroying the infrastructure. The statement was further strengthened by the delegation of China who pointed out that they done everything in order to forbid terrorist organizations to acquire nuclear weapons and even agreed to increase the security of the nuclear silos.
But the atmosphere became tense once the delegation of Cuba took the floor stating that the entire international community knows who the terrorists are and who is financing them. After that harsh intervention, three ideas emerged as preferable by the delegates: first one proposed by the Red Cross – limiting and monitoring the trade of enriched Uranium –second one proposed by the United States – a nuclear free zone in the Middle East- and last one, suggested by Syria, finding a way to enhance the power of the international institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But these thinks take time, as the delegation from Italy remarked, building a free nuclear zone in the Middle East requiring strong cooperation with parties that may not necessarily desire that. After that, the delegates agreed to enter in an underrated Caucasus to tackle the idea of free nuclear zone in the Middle East. Things seemed to move smoothly after that since the delegates were able to exchange informal points of views and soon positive statements emerged: As stipulated by the delegation of Cameroon, the expansion of nuclear-free zones will be a major step forward in nuclear disarmament, followed shortly by the delegation of Egypt who shared the idea that a world in which nuclear threat is inexistent, is a world worth fighting for.
In the end, the mood seemed bright, the tensions disappeared but some delegates were unsettled by the fact that some still fight each other instead of finding a solution. Australian delegate called for consensus and dialogue, whereas China sharply reminded everyone that we divagated from the subject. But these things truly take time, after all, Rome wasn’t built in one day, neither a world in which nuclear Armageddon is inconceivable. When some countries possess the power to destroy the world 7 times, it is understandable why they want time to renounce to such a powerful deterrent.
by Paul Dragomir Ţiplea, DISEC Press Officer