unheadquarters

Prohibición. Posiciones nacionales

Posiciones nacionales de un vistazo
Países que apoyan una prohibición

151

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, BarbadosBelarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, MaltaMarshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, MozambiqueMyanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé & Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Países que no se comprometen

22

Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Canadà, Croacia, Chipre, Finlandia, Alemania, GeorgiaGrecia, Japón, Macedonia, Micronesia, Moldavia, Montenegro, Nauru, República de Corea, Rumania, Eslovenia, Suecia, Uzbekistán
Países que se oponen a una prohibición

22

Bélgica, Bulgaria, República Checa, Estonia, Francia, Hungría, Israel, Italia, Letonia, Lituania, Luxemburgo, Mónaco, Países Bajos, Palaos, Polonia, Portugal, Rusia, Eslovaquia, España, Turquía, Reino Unido, Estados Unidos
Postura de cada país

Esta guía examina las políticas declaradas de 195 países en relación con la firma de un tratado para prohibir las armas nucleares. Se basa en declaraciones y votaciones en la ONU y otros foros internacionales; declaraciones hechas por ministros en parlamentos nacionales y correspondencia enviada por diferentes gobiernos a ICAN. Mira nuestra metodología para obtener más información sobre la guía.

+ Afghanistan

SUPPORTIVE

“We are gravely concerned about the continual stockpiling of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. We join all peace-loving people in their call for a global treaty to outlaw and eliminate these instruments of human destruction.”

Hamid Karzai, President, 2012

Afghanistan supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In November 2012 the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, wrote in a letter to ICAN that his country supports “all peace-loving people in their call for a global treaty to outlaw and eliminate these instruments of human destruction”. Afghanistan attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Albania

ON THE FENCE

“The final implementation of the objectives of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty will need a legally binding international document.”

Ferit Hoxha, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2011

Albania believes that it is premature to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In a letter sent to ICAN in June 2011, it stated that it “believes that an intermediate step-by-step approach with gradual and practical steps toward nuclear disarmament with the involvement of the nuclear-weapon states would be a realistic and reachable approach”.

In the letter it acknowledged that “the final implementation of the objectives of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty will need a legally binding international document”. However, “Albania believes that it is not yet time to call for such an arrangement, including a nuclear weapons convention, as it could have a negative impact on the current disarmament process”.

Albania welcomed, though did not formally endorse, a joint statement in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in 2012 calling on all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it described nuclear weapons as “the most destructive, indiscriminate and inhumane instruments of mass murder ever created”, and called for their elimination.

+ Algeria

SUPPORTIVE

“Algeria strongly supports the call for … an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapons convention.”

Djamel Moktefi, Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, 2012

Algeria supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012, it called for an international conference to be convened “at the earliest possible date with the objective of an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapons convention”. It also endorsed a joint statement urging all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons.

During a high-level meeting on revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament in September 2010, it argued that a convention or framework agreement for the elimination of nuclear weapons is the “appropriate” way for the P5 nuclear-weapon states to fulfil their legal and political commitments to disarm. In the CD in 2012 it said that “it is obvious that piecemeal solutions without a clear strategy” will not lead us to the required objective of a world without nuclear weapons.

Algeria attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, describing it as a “timely and useful conference” that served “once again to provide evidence of the devastating, long-term, irreversible effects of nuclear weapons”. It said that the “momentum” generated by the conference provided an opportunity for “launching a process that could lead to tangible recommendations on preventing nuclear explosions”. Algeria highlighted the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Andorra

ON THE FENCE

Andorra abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In a letter sent to ICAN in August 2011, it stated that it is “in favour of limiting the use of nuclear weapons”.

+ Angola

SUPPORTIVE

Angola votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Antigua & Barbuda

SUPPORTIVE

Antigua and Barbuda votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Argentina

SUPPORTIVE

Argentina supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It endorsed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling upon all states to “intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons”. In February 2011 in the Conference on Disarmament, it commended the proposal of the UN Secretary-General to begin negotiations on a convention prohibiting nuclear weapons. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 93% of Argentines support an international agreement to ban nuclear weapons.

Argentina attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, welcoming its focus on the problem of nuclear weapons “regardless of who owns them”. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it endorsed a joint statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and reiterated “the importance our country places on initiatives concerning the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons”.

+ Armenia

ON THE FENCE

Armenia abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Australia

ON THE FENCE

“Australia supports the exploration of legal frameworks for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons, including the possibility of a nuclear weapons convention.”

Julia Gillard, Prime Minister, 2013

Australia supports “the exploration of legal frameworks for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons, including the possibility of a nuclear weapons convention”. However, its immediate disarmament priorities are the negotiation of a fissile materials cut-off treaty and securing the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The prime minister indicated in 2013 that “[n]uclear disarmament is one of our priorities for our term as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council”.

Australia has acknowledged that a treaty banning nuclear weapons may be necessary in the longer term for the achievement of a nuclear-weapon-free world. It has not actively promoted the negotiation of such a treaty, but it has welcomed the UN Secretary-General’s five-point proposal on nuclear disarmament, which includes a call for a verifiable nuclear weapons convention. Should negotiations begin on such a convention, Australia would most likely participate in the negotiations, but not be a driving force.

Australia attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, but did not make any interventions. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it refused to sign on to an 80-nation statement declaring that any use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. However, it did note the Oslo conference in its individual statement and welcomed Mexico’s offer to host a follow-up conference in February 2014.

In May 2012 the prime minister introduced a motion into the House of Representatives, with the support of the the opposition leader, affirming support for the “goal of a world free of nuclear weapons”. The motion called for, among other things, “exploration of legal frameworks for the abolition of nuclear weapons, including the possibility of a nuclear weapons convention, as prospects for multilateral disarmament improve”. Several parliamentarians spoke in favour of a nuclear weapons ban at the time that the motion was introduced.

In September 2009 a cross-party parliamentary committee with members from both houses of parliament recommended unanimously that Australia make clear in international forums its support for a treaty to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons. In its official response to the inquiry, the government stated that, “at an appropriate time, the international community may need to explore possible legal frameworks, including a nuclear weapons convention, for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons”. It is “open-minded as to when this might be”.

In 2008 the Australian and Japanese governments established the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, which argued that an “important project for the medium term will be to develop, refine and build international understanding and acceptance of the need for a nuclear weapons convention”, and said that there is “no reason why detailed further work on such a convention should not commence now, and with government support”. The commission was an independent body and its views did not necessarily reflect the official policies of Australia or Japan.

Before the Labor Party came to power in November 2007, the party’s foreign affairs spokesperson argued in a policy speech that the proposal to establish a nuclear weapons convention is “timely and important”, and noted that a convention could be used as a tool to assist short-term disarmament goals. Three months later, in response to questioning by a journalist, he pledged that a Labor government, if elected, would “drive the international agenda” for a nuclear weapons convention. However, this promise has not been fulfilled.

+ Austria

SUPPORTIVE

“Austria supports the idea of a nuclear weapons convention equipped with a sophisticated verification mechanism.”

Heinz Fischer, Federal President, 2009

Austria believes that a world without nuclear weapons “can best be achieved by a legal ban” that would “gradually and systematically” get rid of all nuclear weapons in a verified manner. It will “participate in all organizations and processes that will constructively contribute towards achieving this goal”. At a high-level session of the UN Security Council on nuclear issues in September 2009, the Austrian president declared his country’s support for a nuclear weapons convention “equipped with a sophisticated verification mechanism”.

At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, Austria argued that the most effective way to move towards the goal of “global zero” is through a nuclear weapons convention. It subsequently noted in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee that year that the review conference had placed the prospect of a legal framework such as a nuclear weapons convention on the international disarmament agenda for the first time in an agreed document. It argued that the process for such a convention is now underway, and that “it is up to us to identify the appropriate sequencing of events”.

At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, Austria welcomed the “growing interest” in discussing the humanitarian dimension of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament: “This humanitarian narrative must prevail.” It argued that the “discourse on nuclear weapons can no longer be limited to security policy and to security policy circles”, and thanked Mexico for its offer to host a follow-conference. Austria stands ready to support Mexico “to work with all other stakeholders to deepen the humanitarian approach to nuclear weapons”.

In the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in October 2012, it endorsed a joint statement calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons, and argued that the new humanitarian discourse would “further strengthen the case for nuclear disarmament”. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it endorsed a similar joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and described the Oslo conference as an “important milestone”. It rejected the “misguided” view that the humanitarian approach distracts or diverts from implementation of the NPT.

+ Azerbaijan

SUPPORTIVE

Azerbaijan votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Prior to 2011 it had abstained from voting on such resolutions. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 70% of Azerbaijanis support an international agreement to ban nuclear weapons, with 22% opposed.

+ Bahamas

SUPPORTIVE

The Bahamas votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Bahrain

SUPPORTIVE

Bahrain votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It participated in the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Bangladesh

SUPPORTIVE

Bangladesh supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It endorsed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling on all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons, and in 2013 it endorsed a similar statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting. It has expressed support for the process that began in Oslo in March 2013 to examine the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

In 2010 the government endorsed a resolution adopted unanimously by the Bangladeshi parliament in support of the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan on nuclear disarmament, especially his proposal for negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention. Bangladesh was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Barbados

SUPPORTIVE

Barbados votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Belarus

SUPPORTIVE

Belarus supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It endorsed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 urging all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Belgium

OPPOSED

Belgium votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, believing that nuclear disarmament is best achieved through a gradual process involving practical steps, not a comprehensive approach. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and expressed its “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” in April 2013 at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting. In October 2009 a bill was introduced into the Belgian parliament proposing an amendment to the Belgian constitution to prohibit nuclear weapons. However, the bill did not become law.

+ Belize

SUPPORTIVE

Belize votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Benin

SUPPORTIVE

Benin votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Bhutan

SUPPORTIVE

Bhutan votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Bolivia

SUPPORTIVE

Bolivia supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2005, it submitted a working paper together with five other nations calling on all states to fulfil their legal obligation to disarm by commencing negotiations on a convention or framework of instruments prohibiting the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

+ Bosnia & Herzegovina

SUPPORTIVE

Bosnia and Herzegovina votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in Geneva in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Botswana

SUPPORTIVE

Botswana votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Brazil

SUPPORTIVE

“Brazil believes that the time is ripe for beginning discussions on the principles and elements of a nuclear weapons convention.”

Regina Dunlop, Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, 2012

Brazil supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it called for enhanced verification mechanisms to be “devised and grafted into a future convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons”, which would “level the playing field by making zero nuclear weapons the norm for all members of the international community”. It argued that a nuclear weapons convention would be “in line with the chemical and biological weapons conventions”.

In February 2011 it stated that, as a nation “favourable to negotiations on a convention banning nuclear weapons”, it would welcome any manifestation coming from the UN General Assembly in support of that objective. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention. In April 2011, during a session of the UN Disarmament Commission, it argued that the “time is ripe” for beginning negotiations on a convention and urged nations to take “the first step for the total elimination of nuclear weapons”.

In the Conference on Disarmament in January 2012, it called for the establishment of a “subsidiary body with a view to discuss[ing] the question of nuclear disarmament, in particular a treaty banning nuclear weapons”. It argued in April 2012 that the Disarmament Commission also could be used to pave the way for such a treaty. It envisages the negotiation of a fissile material treaty as “part of a larger legal framework, that of a nuclear weapons convention, standing side by side with other mutually reinforcing instruments aimed at the complete elimination of nuclear weapons in a clear, yet realistic, time frame”.

In the General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012, it endorsed a joint statement calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a similar statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. It welcomed the Oslo conference, and expressed its “regret that the nuclear-weapon states decided not to be represented at the event”. It said that it looked forward “to further impetus being given to the international movement to delegitimize the very existence of nuclear weapons”.

+ Brunei

SUPPORTIVE

Brunei votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Bulgaria

OPPOSED

Bulgaria votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In a letter sent to ICAN in February 2011, it argued that nuclear disarmament is best achieved through “gradual steps” and that there are currently “no political conditions” for multilateral negotiations on an instrument that would comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons.

It has expressed concern that a premature start to such negotiations, at a time when there is insufficient international support, could lead to the blocking of negotiations for nuclear disarmament and “may make more difficult, or could slow down, the implementation of already made international commitments”.

+ Burkina Faso

SUPPORTIVE

Burkina Faso votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Burundi

SUPPORTIVE

Burundi votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Cambodia

SUPPORTIVE

Cambodia supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in Geneva in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Cameroon

SUPPORTIVE

Cameroon … calls for multilateral negotiations to be launched without delay on a convention prohibiting the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.”

Ferdinand Ngoh Ngoh, Permanent Mission to the UN, 2009

Cameroon supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the 2009 session of the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, it called for the immediate launch of multilateral negotiations with the aim of creating a convention banning the development, testing, construction, storage, transportation, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Canada

ON THE FENCE

“We recognize the importance of nuclear disarmament and the growing impetus for a nuclear weapons convention. Canada is not opposed to the pursuit of a comprehensive, multilateral agreement banning nuclear weapons.”

Geoff Gartshore, Permanent Mission to the UN at Geneva, 2011

Canada “is not opposed to the pursuit of a comprehensive, multilateral agreement banning nuclear weapons”. However, it believes that “this goal is best built on a foundation of incremental agreements”, such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a fissile materials cut-off treaty. Such treaties will, in Canada’s view, “create the necessary framework and conditions towards achieving a world free of nuclear weapons”. In the Conference on Disarmament in 2012, it said that this approach is based on “the pragmatic recognition that we cannot do everything at once”.

Canada attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, describing it as “an opportunity for valuable fact-based discussions” on the consequences of nuclear detonations. It welcomed the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference in February 2014. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it said that it “shares the concern … about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear weapons”.

In June 2010 the Canadian Senate adopted a motion endorsing the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan on nuclear disarmament and encouraging the Canadian government to engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention. The House of Commons gave its unanimous consent to the same motion in December 2010. Canada has since acknowledged in the Conference on Disarmament “the growing impetus for a nuclear weapons convention”.

+ Cape Verde

SUPPORTIVE

Cape Verde votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Central African Republic

SUPPORTIVE

The Central African Republic votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Chad

SUPPORTIVE

Chad votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Chile

SUPPORTIVE

“Chile reaffirms its support … for laying the foundations for a preliminary discussion on a convention banning nuclear weapons, backed by an effective verification system.”

Octavio Errazuriz, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2010

Chile supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It believes that the negotiation of a convention prohibiting the development, production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and providing for their destruction in a verified manner and according to an agreed timetable is an important “concrete action” for nuclear disarmament. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it called on governments to “lay the foundations for preliminary discussions concerning a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons”.

It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. At the NPT preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it argued for “the elaboration of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons”. It welcomed the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic. It signed on to a similar statement in the General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012, which called for intensified efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons.

+ China

SUPPORTIVE*

“China has always stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons.”

Pang Sen, Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, 2013

China has expressed qualified support for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It regularly calls for “the development, at an appropriate time, of a viable, long-term plan composed of phased actions, including a convention on the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons”. It is the only Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear-weapon state to vote in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for the immediate commencement of negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention. It states that it “has always stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons”.

China believes that the United States and Russia “bear special and primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament” and should continue to make “drastic and substantive reductions in their nuclear arsenals” before a multilateral nuclear disarmament process can begin. It has argued that, “[w]hen conditions are ripe, other nuclear-weapon states should also join the multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament”. Together with the other NPT nuclear-weapon states, China boycotted the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 83% of people in China support a ban on nuclear weapons, with 14% opposed.

* China possesses nuclear weapons and, like all other nuclear-armed nations, has shown no genuine commitment to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. Instead, it continues to invest heavily in the maintenance and modernization of its nuclear forces, with a clear intention to retain them for many decades to come. Its stated support for a treaty banning nuclear weapons should be considered in light of these realities.

+ Colombia

SUPPORTIVE

We insist on the urgency of an international legally binding instrument that prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.”

Claudia Blum de Barberi, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2010

Colombia supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it argued that governments should, “as a matter of urgency”, negotiate an international legally binding instrument that prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

It endorsed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling for intensified efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons and a similar statement at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference in March 2013.

+ Comoros

SUPPORTIVE

Comoros votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Congo

SUPPORTIVE

The Republic of the Congo votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2010 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Cook Islands

SUPPORTIVE

The Cook Islands supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it expressed support for the disarmament policies of the International Federation of the Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which favour negotiations for a treaty banning the use of and completely eliminating nuclear weapons.

+ Costa Rica

SUPPORTIVE

“With the promotion of a nuclear weapons convention, we have played an active role in the promotion of world peace.”

Laura Chinchilla, President, 2013

Costa Rica supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It submitted a model nuclear weapons convention prepared by civil society to the United Nations in 1997 and a revised version of the model in 2007 that took into account relevant technical, legal and political developments since the first incarnation of the proposed treaty. It has stated that the model convention was intended to assist parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in deliberations with respect to implementation of Article VI of the treaty.

The model convention prohibits “the use, threat of use, possession, development, testing, deployment and transfer of nuclear weapons and provides a phased programme for the elimination of these weapons under effective international control”. Costa Rica believes that “this could be a starting point for negotiations to create an instrument capable of strengthening confidence in verification and ensuring the supervision of the dismantling and final reduction of nuclear stockpiles”.

Costa Rica has argued in the Conference on Disarmament that “it is time to take the necessary steps and begin a preparatory process to obtain a universal and legally binding convention banning nuclear weapons”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention, and it endorsed a joint statement in the First Committee that year calling for intensified efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons.

It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013. It said that it is “proud” to have joined all similar humanitarian statements in the past, and noted that the Oslo conference showed that “it is not possible to prepare for a nuclear explosion and … the consequences … would be unimaginable”.

+ Côte D’Ivoire

SUPPORTIVE

Côte D’Ivoire votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Croatia

ON THE FENCE

Croatia abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Cuba

SUPPORTIVE

“Cuba is ready to negotiate … a treaty that eliminates and prohibits nuclear weapons.”

Rodolfo Benitez Verson, Permanent Mission to the UN, 2011

Cuba has stated that it is ready to negotiate “a treaty that eliminates and prohibits nuclear weapons”. It believes that the “only guarantee that nuclear weapons will not be used by states or anyone else is their complete elimination and prohibition under strict international control”. In the Conference on Disarmament, it has urged nations to establish an ad hoc committee to work on “an instrument to establish a phased programme for the total elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified period of time”.

Cuba was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. In the First Committee in October 2011, it noted that the nuclear-weapon states have failed to meet their Non-Proliferation Treaty Article VI obligation to negotiate “an international treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons”.

At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, Cuba noted that the “total elimination and banning of nuclear weapons is extensively supported at the international level”. It endorsed a joint statement at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and urged nations to take the necessary steps “for the immediate commencement of negotiations allowing the early adoption of an international convention on nuclear disarmament”.

+ Cyprus

ON THE FENCE

Cyprus abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. In a letter to ICAN it reiterated its “commitment towards the objective of the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons”.

+ Czech Republic

OPPOSED

The Czech Republic votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

SUPPORTIVE*

“The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is steadfast on the comprehensive and total abolition of nuclear weapons and, to this end, insists that a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons with a timeframe be adopted.”

Ri Tong Il, Permanent Mission of the DPRK to the UN, 2011

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or North Korea, votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In February 2011 it argued in the Conference on Disarmament that “priority should be given to concluding at an earlier date an international convention placing nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states under an obligation to prohibit development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer and use or threat of use of nuclear weapons”.

It has said that it “is steadfast on the comprehensive and total abolition of nuclear weapons and, to this end, insists that a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons with [a] timeframe be adopted”. It believes that “the primary concern on disarmament issues should be on the conclusion of a legally binding treaty for total elimination of nuclear weapons and prohibition of the use or threat of use”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention.

* The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons and, like all other nuclear-armed nations, has shown no genuine commitment to eliminate its arsenal in the foreseeable future. Instead, it continues to carry out nuclear test explosions, the most recent of which was in February 2013. Its stated support for a treaty banning nuclear weapons should be considered in light of these realities.

+ Democratic Republic of the Congo

SUPPORTIVE

The Democratic Republic of the Congo votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Denmark

SUPPORTIVE

Denmark supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2012, it endorsed a joint statement calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. It endorsed a similar statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

Denmark attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013 and expressed its hope that more countries, including the P5 nuclear-weapon states, will engage in future fact-based discussions on the effects of nuclear weapons. It has defended this “third-track approach to disarmament and non-proliferation”, arguing that it “is not meant to undermine existing multilateral or bilateral nuclear disarmament mechanisms”.

+ Djibouti

SUPPORTIVE

Djibouti votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Dominica

SUPPORTIVE

Dominica votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Dominican Republic

SUPPORTIVE

The Dominican Republic votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Ecuador

SUPPORTIVE

The existence of nuclear weapons in the world represents a serious threat to human security and the survival of humanity. The only option is to eradicate this threat through the complete prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”

Marcelo Vázquez, Permanent Representative to the UN at Geneva, 2013

Ecuador supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the UN General Assembly in 2012, it highlighted the fact that there are conventions prohibiting chemical and biological weapons, but no such convention for nuclear weapons. It endorsed a joint statement urging all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons. In the First Committee in 2010 it argued that negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban must begin as soon as possible.

Ecuador attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and stated that “[t]he only option is to eradicate this threat through the total and complete prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons”.

It argued that it “is imperative to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which provides for their destruction without delay”. It welcomed Mexico’s offer to host a follow-up conference to the Oslo conference, and said that it would work to “delegitimize the use and possession of nuclear weapons”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling for a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Egypt

SUPPORTIVE

“Egypt reiterates its full support for the … prompt commencement of negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention, the route to realizing a world free from nuclear weapons.”

Sameh AboulEnein, Deputy Assistant Minister for Disarmament Affairs, 2013

Egypt supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It has stated that the push for such a treaty takes as its premise the legal commitment of the nuclear-weapon states to disarm under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also takes its cue from the 1996 nuclear weapons advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which declared the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons to be generally illegal under international law.

At the NPT review conference in 2010, it called on the nuclear-weapon states to comply fully with their legal obligations under the treaty by initiating multilateral negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention aimed at banning nuclear weapons and achieving their total elimination within an agreed time frame. It argued that the lack of progress in implementing the disarmament provisions of the NPT confirms the need to create a legal framework to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Egypt has emphasized that the final document of the 2010 NPT review conference expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”, and it is within this context that it envisages the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention. It aspires “to have this concluded in our lifetime as the specter of nuclear weapons will always haunt us until we finally get rid of this weapon that is the most heinous of all weapons of mass destruction”.

Egypt participated in the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, at which it welcomed “the increased attention that this issue has received in recent years”. It “feels encouraged about the momentum this issue is gaining day after day”. At the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and expressed its hope that the nuclear-weapon states would attend the follow-up conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in Mexico in 2014.

Egypt was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It also endorsed a joint statement in the General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 urging states to intensify their efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 83% of Egyptians support a ban on nuclear weapons, with only 17% opposed.

+ El Salvador

SUPPORTIVE

El Salvador votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Equatorial Guinea

SUPPORTIVE

Equatorial Guinea votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Eritrea

SUPPORTIVE

Eritrea votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Estonia

OPPOSED

Estonia votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, believing that steps such as entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the negotiation of a fissile materials cut-off treaty “should be taken in the short term to facilitate nuclear disarmament” before embarking on multilateral negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention.

The foreign minister, Urmas Paet, wrote in a letter to ICAN in June 2012: “Rather than starting negotiations on a new international legal instrument, our efforts should be focused towards making existing instruments work more effectively.” Estonia attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Ethiopia

SUPPORTIVE

“We remain committed to the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free zone worldwide.”

Tekeda Alemu, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2012

Ethiopia votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013. It has said that it is “committed to the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free zone worldwide”.

+ Fiji

SUPPORTIVE

“We hold the view that nuclear weapons … exist only as a risk that could lead to human catastrophes of unprecedented proportions … Nuclear weapons should be totally banned.”

Sila Balawa, Ministry of Defence, 2013

Fiji supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it argued that “nuclear weapons serve no useful purpose to the world in this day and age” and “should be totally banned”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Finland

ON THE FENCE

Finland abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 argued that “the humanitarian impacts of the use of nuclear weapons would be most catastrophic and indiscriminate”. It also said that “we cannot afford to lose any time” in advancing a nuclear-weapon-free world.

+ France

OPPOSED

France votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2011, it complained that some governments were still calling “for an international convention to ban nuclear weapons” even though this was not, according to France, “retained at the [NPT] review conference or in debates at any other UN body”.

In 2009 a resolution was submitted to the French Senate calling on the government to support at the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010 practical steps leading to a nuclear weapons convention. However, the resolution was not adopted. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 86% of French people support a ban on nuclear weapons, with 12% opposed to the idea.

+ Gabon

SUPPORTIVE

Gabon votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Gambia

Supportive

The Gambia votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Georgia

ON THE FENCE

Georgia abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Germany

ON THE FENCE

Germany agrees in principle with the goal of a ban on nuclear weapons but “regards the demand for the immediate commencement of negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention to be unrealistic at the present time”. Responding to a parliamentary interpellation in 2011, the federal government stated that, in its view, “the conditions for beginning such negotiations will not be fulfilled in the foreseeable future”. It instead supports a “step-by-step approach” to nuclear disarmament based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty action plan agreed in 2010.

However, Germany has not yet indicated whether it would support a simpler ban treaty pursued by non-nuclear-armed nations that does not, at the outset, include a binding timetable for the phased elimination of nuclear stockpiles. The German parliament passed a resolution in March 2010, with cross-party support, calling on the federal government to be proactive in discussions about various approaches aimed at achieving full nuclear disarmament and in the debate about a nuclear weapons ban. A public opinion poll conducted in 2007 found that 95.4% of Germans support a treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.

The German coalition agreement of 2009 states that the German government’s goal is to have all US nuclear weapons withdrawn from its soil. However, there is not yet consensus within NATO on ending nuclear-sharing. Germany participated in the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013. It has since welcomed the follow-up conference to be held in Mexico in February 2014. The German foreign minister has tasked his disarmament envoy with seeking out ways that would enable Germany to join future joint statements on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

+ Ghana

SUPPORTIVE

Ghana votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013. It also expressed its agreement with the conclusion of the Oslo conference.

+ Greece

ON THE FENCE

In a letter addressed to ICAN in October 2012, the president of Greece, Karolos Papoulias, stated that his “country supports the strengthening of the international legal framework for the prohibition of nuclear tests as well as the production of fissile materials, and firmly believes that progress towards this direction will ultimately lead to a future treaty for the abolition of nuclear weapons”. Greece attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Grenada

SUPPORTIVE

Grenada votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Guatemala

SUPPORTIVE

Guatemala votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it reiterated its support for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and described the continued existence of nuclear weapons as “a major challenge for humanity and the environment”.

It was a lead sponsor of a draft General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention, and in 2013 is signed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Guinea

SUPPORTIVE

Guinea votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Guinea-Bissau

SUPPORTIVE

Guinea-Bissau votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Guyana

SUPPORTIVE

Guyana votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Haiti

SUPPORTIVE

Haiti votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Holy See

SUPPORTIVE

“Preparatory work should begin as soon as possible on a convention or framework agreement leading to the phased elimination of nuclear weapons.”

Celestino Migliore, Permanent Observer to the UN, 2010

The Holy See supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2012, it endorsed a joint statement calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

At the NPT review conference in 2010, it argued that the world had arrived at “an opportune moment” to begin addressing in a systematic way the legal, political and technical requirements for achieving and maintaining a nuclear-weapon-free world. It called on governments to begin preparatory work “as soon as possible on a convention or framework agreement leading to the phased elimination of nuclear weapons”.

+ Honduras

SUPPORTIVE

Honduras votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Hungary

OPPOSED

Hungary votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It believes that nuclear disarmament is best achieved through a gradual process of practical steps, not a comprehensive approach. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Iceland

SUPPORTIVE

Iceland supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2012, it endorsed a joint statement calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ India

SUPPORTIVE*

Just as it was possible to prohibit chemical and biological weapons through non-discriminatory and global international conventions, achievement of non-discriminatory, global nuclear disarmament is … possible.”

Hamid Ali Rao, Permanent Representative to the UN at Geneva, 2009

India has expressed support for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It believes that nuclear disarmament “can be achieved by a step-by-step process underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed multilateral framework for achieving global and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

In September 2009 the Indian prime minister delivered a speech in which he reiterated India’s proposal for a convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and providing for their complete elimination. The Rajiv Gandhi Plan for Nuclear Abolition and a Non-Violent World Order, which was presented to the UN General Assembly in 1988, advocated such a treaty.

At the 2009 session of the General Assembly’s First Committee, India argued that, just as it was possible to prohibit chemical and biological weapons through non-discriminatory conventions, it is also possible to prohibit nuclear weapons through a convention. In 2012 it submitted a draft resolution to the General Assembly “on a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons”, which it argued would “contribute to the process of de-legitimization of nuclear weapons and create a favourable climate for negotiations on an agreement on the [total] prohibition of nuclear weapons”.

At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, India stated that “[a]ll nuclear weapons, irrespective of their origin, deployment or possessing state, pose the same horrible danger to our planet, and hence the need for everyone to work together for achieving the goal of their total and irreversible elimination”. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 62% of Indians support the conclusion of a treaty banning nuclear weapons, with 20% opposed to the idea.

* India possesses nuclear weapons and, like all other nuclear-armed nations, has shown no genuine commitment to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. Instead, it continues to invest heavily in the build-up of its nuclear forces, with a clear intention to retain them for many decades to come. Its stated support for a treaty banning nuclear weapons should be considered in light of these realities.

+ Indonesia

SUPPORTIVE

“We must work intensively together to produce a universal nuclear weapons convention with a specific timeline for the attainment of complete nuclear disarmament.”

Marty Natalegawa, Minister for Foreign Affairs, 2010

Indonesia supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It has emphasized “the necessity to start negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a nuclear weapons convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction, without further delay”.

In the Conference on Disarmament in August 2010 Indonesia called on states to work “intensively together” to produce a universal nuclear weapons convention with a specific timeline for the attainment of complete nuclear disarmament. At a high-level meeting on revitalizing the work of the CD in September 2010, it argued that the political will generated as a result of recent developments should allow the CD to advance negotiations towards a convention. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling for immediate negotiations leading to a convention.

Indonesia has stated that Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty provides a clear legal basis for the development of a nuclear weapons convention. In its view, the reference in the final document of the 2010 NPT review conference to “special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons” could be a “window of opportunity” for the proposed convention to gain “some degree of support” from the nuclear-weapon states.

It has been critical of the current “step-by-step” approach to nuclear disarmament, which it says only reinforces the status quo. It has called for “a comprehensive approach with a coherent overarching policy of nuclear disarmament”, which would help to prevent the “negotiation fatigue” caused by a prolonged and “piecemeal” negotiation process. It is Indonesia’s strong view that a nuclear weapons convention could serve as a comprehensive approach towards creating a nuclear-weapon-free world.

It recommended in 2010 that the process for such a treaty should begin “as soon as possible” and with the backing of civil society. This process should occur in parallel to a more “informal and open-ended setting for discussion involving all nuclear-weapon states” to gather information on their preliminary views and concerns. Joint efforts of some “key states” to initiate this process would, in its view, be “valuable”.

Indonesia has called for the constructive engagement of the “unwilling” in the negotiations, particularly around questions of verification of a nuclear weapons convention. It has stressed the importance of ensuring that the treaty could “prevent any possible cheating and non-compliance by certain countries”.

In the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012, it endorsed a joint statement calling for intensified efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons, and expressed its hope “that we see tangible progress on … negotiating a nuclear weapons convention”. It endorsed a similar statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the same topic in March 2013.

+ Iran

SUPPORTIVE

It is high time … to start negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention … banning production, development and use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.”

Ali Akbar Salehi, Minister for Foreign Affairs, 2011

Iran supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It has called for a convention that prohibits the production, development, deployment and use of nuclear weapons; bans the production of fissile materials for military purposes and requires the elimination of existing stocks; and sets out a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear warheads within a specific time frame. It considers this to be a “ripe topic for negotiation” in the Conference on Disarmament.

At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, Iran argued that governments should set a clear deadline for the total elimination of nuclear weapons through the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention. On several occasions, it has called for the establishment, “as the highest priority and as soon as possible”, of an ad hoc committee with a mandate to negotiate a convention in the CD.

It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013. It noted that government support for a treaty eliminating nuclear weapons “has grown significantly in recent years”. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 68% of Iranians support a ban on nuclear weapons, with 13% opposed.

+ Iraq

SUPPORTIVE

“We attest to the importance of developing an agreement against the possession of nuclear weapons in furtherance of international disarmament and non-proliferation.”

Mouayed Saleh, Ambassador to Australia, 2011

Iraq supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In a letter sent to ICAN in March 2011, it stressed the importance of developing an agreement against the possession of nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Ireland

SUPPORTIVE

“We can and must do more … to begin the work leading to genuine disarmament negotiations, be they for a single, multilaterally negotiated instrument or a series of mutually reinforcing agreements.”

Gerard Keown, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013

Ireland supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In October 2012 it endorsed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it signed a similar statement on the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons, and argued that “[w]e can and must do more … to begin the world leading to genuine disarmament negotiations, be they for a single, multilaterally negotiated instrument or a series of mutually reinforcing agreements”.

It welcomed the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons held in March 2013, describing it as “a timely contribution to the international discussion on nuclear disarmament”. It said that it considered the “humanitarian approach to nuclear weapons … to be fully compatible with and supportive of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”. It hopes to see “the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament explored in more detail” in the NPT review process.

It criticized the NPT nuclear-weapon states for their failure to attend the Oslo conference: “Their absence was, perhaps, a missed opportunity and we hope they will be present in Mexico [for the follow-up conference].” It considers “the groundswell of support for a meaningful discussion around the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons” to be a sign of the “wider UN community’s sense of frustration at the slow pace of disarmament”.

Irish president Michael D. Higgins, who assumed office in 2011, spoke strongly in favour of a nuclear weapons convention prior to being elected. In a speech delivered in November 2010 he argued that “the aspiration for a nuclear-weapons-free world contained in the NPT needs to be translated into reality with the emergence of a nuclear weapons convention”. Ireland played an important role in the negotiation of the NPT at the end of the 1960s.

+ Israel

OPPOSED

Israel votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 67% of Israelis support a nuclear weapons ban, with 25% opposed to the idea.

+ Italy

OPPOSED

Italy votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It believes that nuclear disarmament is best achieved through a gradual process involving practical steps, not a comprehensive approach. In June 2009 the Italian parliament adopted a resolution noting the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan on nuclear disarmament. An operative paragraph in the original draft resolution supporting a nuclear weapons convention was removed to secure the government’s approval. Italy attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013. A public opinion poll in 2007 showed that 94.6% of Italians support a nuclear weapons ban.

+ Jamaica

SUPPORTIVE

Jamaica supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it argued that nuclear weapons should be banned “once and for all”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention, and it endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Japan

ON THE FENCE

“Japan is willing to participate in discussions, with a longer perspective, on how a multilateral nuclear disarmament framework or a nuclear weapons convention … should look in the final phase of nuclear disarmament.”

Akio Suda, Permanent Representative to the UN at Geneva, 2011

Japan has expressed a willingness to participate in discussions “with a longer perspective” on how a multilateral nuclear disarmament framework or treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons should look “in the final phase of nuclear disarmament”. However, it believes that it is “premature” to call upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

In November 2012 Japanese civil society organizations issued a press statement following a meeting with parliamentary vice-minister Kazama Kaoki and other government officials in Tokyo regarding Japan’s stance towards to a ban on nuclear weapons. According to the statement, the officials at the meeting indicated that efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons are incompatible with Japan’s continued reliance on the extended nuclear deterrence afforded by the US military.

Japan has said that, as a precondition for beginning work on a nuclear weapons convention, states must take “concrete measures to achieve steady, step-by-step progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation”. For this reason, it abstains from voting on draft UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a nuclear weapons convention, and has offered explanations for its vote on the resolution titled “Follow-up to the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”.

It has stated that it supports the unanimous opinion of the International Court of Justice on the existing obligations under international law to pursue nuclear disarmament and conclude negotiations in good faith. However, in order to fulfil those obligations, it believes that “we must take further practical steps and effective measures towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons with the involvement of the nuclear-weapon states”. The approach of a convention “seems to be different from this”.

In the Conference on Disarmament in September 2011, Japan stated that it is “not realistic”, at this point in time, to expect all CD members to agree to the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention encompassing a ban on fissile materials, negative security assurances and steps on nuclear force posture. It believes that diplomatic efforts should instead be focused on securing the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiating a fissile materials cut-off treaty.

On several occasions, the Japanese government has responded to questions in the national legislature, or Diet, pertaining to a nuclear weapons convention. In 2002, for example, it argued that to seek the preparation of such an international agreement now would aggravate the confrontation between nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states, with the possible consequence of delaying the disarmament process.

In 2008 Australia and Japan established the “independent” International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, which argued in its report that “an important project for the medium term would be to develop, refine and build international understanding and acceptance of the need for a nuclear weapons convention”, and “there is no reason why detailed further work on such a treaty should not commence now, with government support”. However, this does not appear to reflect official Japanese policy.

Japan participated in the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013. Following the conference, it remarked that it would work with “strengthened resolve to seek a nuclear-weapon-free world”, including by continuing “to advance disarmament and non-proliferation education”. Given “the awful humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons use”, it believes that it is an “urgent priority” to implement the 2010 NPT action plan. However, it refused to endorse a joint statement at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, despite strong encouragement from civil society to do so.

+ Jordan

SUPPORTIVE

“The responsibility lies on all of us to develop mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of nuclear weapons, starting with prohibiting the production, testing and stockpiling of them.”

Hamza Al-Omari, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013

Jordan supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it argued that “the responsibility lies on all of us to develop mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of nuclear weapons, starting with prohibiting the production, testing and stockpiling of them”.

It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2010 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Kazakhstan

SUPPORTIVE

We share the vision of countries around the world for a convention against nuclear weapons to become a reality.”

Byrganym Aitimova, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2010

Kazakhstan has said that it shares “the vision of countries around the world for a convention against nuclear weapons to become a reality”. During the 2010 session of the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, it argued that a “universal declaration for a nuclear-weapon-free world”, as proposed by the nation’s president, would “reaffirm the determination of all states to move, step by step, towards a convention against nuclear weapons”.

Kazakhstan has offered its “full and unequivocal” support for a treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, and has described the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan on nuclear disarmament as providing “much-needed high-level impetus” to disarmament negotiations. It votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Prior to 2010, it abstained from voting on such resolutions.

In 2012 it endorsed a joint statement in the First Committee urging all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons, and said that it would work with other states to “accelerate the momentum” for a ban on nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Kenya

SUPPORTIVE

Nations serious enough about the elimination of nuclear weapons need to start negotiations now on a treaty to ban them.”

John O. Otachi, Permanent Mission to the UN at Geneva, 2013

Kenya supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it called on the international community to begin early negotiations leading to the conclusion of “an international convention for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 96% of Kenyans support such a convention.

Kenya welcomed the outcome of the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, describing it as “a significant event”. It said that the conference “reinforces our view that nations serious enough about the elimination of nuclear weapons need to start negotiations now on a treaty to ban them”. Such a treaty, it said, “can be pivotal in the delegitimization of nuclear weapons”. It endorsed a joint statement at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Kiribati

SUPPORTIVE

Kiribati is not known to have publicly expressed its position on a treaty banning nuclear weapons. However, our research indicates that it is supportive.

+ Kuwait

SUPPORTIVE

Kuwait supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it argued that a ban treaty would complement existing international law. It endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Kyrgyzstan

SUPPORTIVE

“The nuclear powers should be called upon to ban nuclear weapons.”

Cholpon Chekirova, Ministry of Emergency Situations, 2013

Kyrgyzstan supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, the Kyrgyz government called upon nuclear-armed nations to ban nuclear weapons.

+ Laos

SUPPORTIVE

“We aspire to make the entire planet a nuclear-weapon-free zone, and a key step would be to make real the UN Secretary-General’s October 2008 call for a convention against nuclear weapons.”

Kanika Phommachanh, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2011

The Lao People’s Democratic Republic supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in October 2010, it called on nations to harness and “vigorously implement” each of the actions agreed at the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference of 2010 “resulting finally in a convention against nuclear weapons”.

During the First Committee’s 2011 session, it argued that a “key step” towards making “the entire planet a nuclear-weapon-free zone” would be to make real the UN Secretary-General’s call for a nuclear weapons convention. Laos was a lead sponsor of a draft General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Latvia

OPPOSED

Latvia votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Lebanon

SUPPORTIVE

“We hope that there will be a universal treaty adopted in the near future to outlaw and eliminate all nuclear weapons.”

Jean Daniel, Ambassador to Australia, 2011

Lebanon supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In a letter sent to ICAN in February 2011, it expressed its hope “that there will be a universal treaty adopted in the near future to outlaw and eliminate all nuclear weapons”. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

At the NPT review conference in 2010, it argued that, in order to prevent the future use of nuclear weapons, governments should strengthen the international legal system by commencing negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention. It also submitted a working paper on behalf of the League of Arab States calling on the conference to establish a timetable and specific plan for nuclear disarmament, including the commencement of work on a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.

+ Lesotho

SUPPORTIVE

Lesotho votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013.

+ Liberia

SUPPORTIVE

Liberia votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Libya

SUPPORTIVE

“We are calling for the intensification of all efforts … to conclude international instruments related to the full eradication and prohibition of nuclear weapons.”

Adnan Mustafa Elosta, Permanent Representative to the UN at Geneva, 2012

Libya supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it called for “the elimination of nuclear weapons through a verifiable instrument”. At a high-level meeting on revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament in 2010, it emphasized the need for the CD to focus on advancing the agenda of nuclear disarmament, including negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention.

It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the Conference on Disarmament in January 2012, it argued that states should “embark on serious negotiations” leading to the complete prohibition and eradication of nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Liechtenstein

SUPPORTIVE

“Liechtenstein supports the long-term goal of a nuclear weapons convention, in line with the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan.”

Christian Wenaweser, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2010

Liechtenstein supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it argued that governments should prepare the ground for achieving “the long-term goal of a nuclear weapons convention, in line with the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan” on nuclear disarmament. It reiterated its support in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in October 2010, but warned that “we must be realistic: such a convention will not come about tomorrow”.

In the 2012 session of the First Committee, it endorsed a joint statement calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. It endorsed a similar statement in April 2013 at the NPT preparatory committee meeting highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Lithuania

OPPOSED

Lithuania votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Luxembourg

OPPOSED

Luxembourg votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, believing that nuclear disarmament is best achieved through a gradual process of practical steps, not a comprehensive approach. However, at a high-level meeting on revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament in September 2010, it expressed its support for the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan on nuclear disarmament, which includes consideration of a nuclear weapons convention.

Luxembourg attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Macedonia

ON THE FENCE

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia typically abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It has stated that its positions on nuclear issues at the United Nations are “coherent with [its] strategic priority of accession to NATO and membership of the European Union”.

+ Madagascar

SUPPORTIVE

Madagascar votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Malawi

SUPPORTIVE

“Malawisupports the UN Secretary-General’s call for negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons.”

Charles P Msosa, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2013

In a letter sent to ICAN in June 2013, Malawi stated that it “supports the UN Secretary-General’s call for negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons”.

+ Malaysia

SUPPORTIVE

“All states should … commence multilateral negotiations leading to the conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention at the earliest possible date.”

Hamidon Ali, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2010

Malaysia has long advocated a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Together with Costa Rica, it submitted a revised model nuclear weapons convention prepared by civil society to the United Nations in 2007. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it called on nuclear-weapon states to demonstrate leadership by implementing past commitments and achieving the total elimination of their nuclear weapons through the conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling for the immediate commencement of negotiations leading to a convention, and endorsed a joint statement urging all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons. It believes that an “incremental–comprehensive approach”, as encapsulated in the model convention, will enable states to reach “a balanced implementation of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation”.

Malaysia attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013. It has noted that the biological and chemical weapons conventions “were negotiated and finalised many years ago”, but some states continue to be reluctant “to initiate and support a similar convention on the complete and total elimination of nuclear weapons”.

+ Maldives

SUPPORTIVE

The Maldives votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Mali

SUPPORTIVE

Mali votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2010 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Malta

SUPPORTIVE

Malta supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2012, it endorsed a joint statement calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. It endorsed a similar statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Marshall Islands

SUPPORTIVE

“I stand with you … to reinforce the views that have been expressed by representatives of over 140 countries in support of concluding a nuclear weapons convention.”

Christopher J. Loeak, President, 2012

The Marshall Islands supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In a letter sent to ICAN in November 2012 the president, Christopher J. Loeak, expressed his support for the conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. In the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2012, the Marshall Islands endorsed a joint statement calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons.

+ Mauritania

SUPPORTIVE

Mauritania votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Mauritius

SUPPORTIVE

Mauritius votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Mexico

SUPPORTIVE

“I reiterate the strong support of my government for achieving a global treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.”

Enrique Peña Nieto, President, 2013

Mexico supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In a letter sent to ICAN in July 2013, Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto expressed “the strong support of [his] government for achieving a global treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons”. He said that Mexico will “promote the renewal of international commitment to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons” through multilateral negotiations leading to such a treaty.

At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, Mexico called on the nuclear-weapon states to agree to negotiate a convention that would prohibit nuclear weapons and establish a time frame for their elimination. Such a convention would provide “necessary certainty to the international community”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention.

It endorsed a joint statement in the General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling for intensified efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons. It noted that a “nuclear detonation, of any kind, anywhere, would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences for the climate, food security and development”. In February 2011 it argued that partial measures aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons in no way replaced the need for multilateral negotiations leading to an instrument or set of legally binding instruments to eliminate nuclear weapons in a verified manner.

At the conclusion of the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, Mexico announced that it would host a follow-up conference to “expand on” the discussion in Oslo. It said that its “interest in strengthening [the Non-Proliferation Treaty] … and forging new agreements has its foundation in the humanitarian imperative”. It believes that it is “necessary to mainstream the humanitarian perspective of a possible nuclear weapon detonation”.

Mexico endorsed a joint statement at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian conferences of nuclear weapons, and described the Oslo conference as potentially being “the germ of a process to move substantially towards the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons”. In March 2012 the Mexican senate adopted by consensus a resolution calling for a global intergovernmental conference to negotiate a nuclear weapons ban. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 87% of Mexicans support a ban, with 10% opposed.

+ Micronesia

ON THE FENCE

Micronesia abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Moldova

ON THE FENCE

Moldova abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Monaco

OPPOSED

Monaco votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Mongolia

SUPPORTIVE

“I hope that … the campaign for the conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention will yield positive results.”

– Nambar Enkhbayar, President, 2007

Mongolia supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the Conference on Disarmament in March 2012, it called for “the early start of negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention”. In 2007 the Mongolian president delivered a statement welcoming the launch of ICAN and expressing his hope that the campaign for a nuclear weapons convention would “yield positive results”. Mongolia attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Montenegro

ON THE FENCE

Montenegro abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Morocco

SUPPORTIVE

“Morocco calls … on states to consider seriously the merits of concluding an international convention for the total elimination of nuclear arms.”

Siham Mourabit, Permanent Mission of Morocco to the UN, 2010

Morocco supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. During the 2010 session of the UN Disarmament Commission, it called on states to give “serious consideration to the merits” of concluding an international convention for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It has remarked that the impasse in negotiations on nuclear disarmament undermines the ultimate goal of a convention banning nuclear weapons.

It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Mozambique

SUPPORTIVE

Mozambique votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Myanmar

SUPPORTIVE

“The negotiations for the attainment of a nuclear weapons convention … require our constant attention.”

U Maung Wai, Permanent Representative to the UN at Geneva, 2011

Myanmar supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention. In October 2011, in a statement to the General Assembly’s First Committee, it argued that negotiations for the attainment of a nuclear weapons convention “require our constant attention”.

In the First Committee in October 2012, Myanmar said that it shares “the view on the need to address the humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and the inconsistency of their use with fundamental rules of international humanitarian law”. It argued that “the only absolute guarantee against a nuclear catastrophe is their complete and total elimination”.

+ Namibia

SUPPORTIVE

Namibia votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Nauru

ON THE FENCE

Nauru abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Previously it had voted in favour of such resolutions.

+ Nepal

SUPPORTIVE

Nepal supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Netherlands

OPPOSED

The Netherlands votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, as it believes that nuclear disarmament is best achieved through a gradual process involving practical steps, not a comprehensive approach. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it welcomed the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, which it said “reminded us again about the devastating effects of these weapons and hence the importance of making progress towards” a world without nuclear weapons.

+ New Zealand

SUPPORTIVE

“New Zealand regularly supports a resolution at the UN General Assembly which calls for negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention.”

Georgina te Heuheu, Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, 2010

New Zealand votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It endorsed a joint statement in the General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling on states to “intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons”. It has said that, “in order to reach a world without nuclear weapons, there will eventually need to be a legally binding instrument or framework of instruments”. However, it believes that it is “a matter of starting negotiations when the time is right and when our efforts will have the most impact”; “much more work needs to be done” before a ban on nuclear weapons can be negotiated.

In August 2012 the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee of the New Zealand parliament tabled a report arguing that “New Zealand should move beyond a position of general support to the forefront of negotiations towards a nuclear weapons convention”. It recommended that New Zealand’s “geopolitical role” be to push “the boundaries towards peaceful resolutions”, and called on the government “to take an active role regarding the abolition of nuclear weapons, as it did regarding cluster munitions”.

New Zealand participated in the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, which it said “served to remind us all that any use of nuclear weapons comes at a cost none of us should be prepared to pay”. It welcomed Mexico’s offer to host a follow-up conference, and undertook to “wholeheartedly join in all work” that would bring us closer to the goal of “the elimination of nuclear weapons”. It endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Nicaragua

SUPPORTIVE

Nicaragua supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2005, it submitted a working paper together with five other nations calling on all states to fulfil their legal obligation to disarm by negotiating a convention prohibiting nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in Geneva in April 2013.

+ Niger

SUPPORTIVE

Niger votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Nigeria

SUPPORTIVE

Nigeria supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It endorsed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling for intensified efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. It was also a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 86% of Nigerians support an agreement to ban nuclear weapons, with 12% opposed.

At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, Nigeria encouraged participants to “keep the tempo of the momentum set here in Oslo high and to never relent in our efforts towards achieving a world without nuclear weapons”. It endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons, and remarked that “the detonation of a nuclear device would have grave humanitarian consequences that will spread beyond national borders”.

+ Norway

SUPPORTIVE

“We are working along several different tracks to achieve the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. We are aiming at a genuine total ban, and we are working actively to lay the political and practical foundations for achieving this.”

Jonas Gahr Støre, Minister for Foreign Affairs, 2011

Norway supports “a genuine, total ban” on nuclear weapons and is “working actively to lay the political and practical foundation for achieving this”. It endorsed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling for intensified efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons, and has emphasized the need and obligation to negotiate “a legally binding instrument to fulfil the provisions of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty”, in accordance with the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

However, Norway does not support the call for the negotiation of a ban on nuclear weapons in the Conference on Disarmament, a body which it says has been “paralysed” for many years. In October 2011, during a session of the First Committee, Norway argued that “substance should guide our methods of work, and we should not let ourselves be blocked by our own institutional structures”. For this reason, it abstains from voting on the Malaysian resolution proposing the immediate commencement of negotiations in the CD leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

Norway supports “the general objective of the resolution” but does not find “the general approach and methodology conducive to further nuclear disarmament”. It is “far from convinced that the CD provides the best arena for developing legally binding disarmament commitments”. In addition, it has “serious reservations concerning the reference to the model nuclear weapons convention” in the resolution, believing that it is highly doubtful “that the allusion to such a specific treaty text, at this point in time, is an adequate way to catalyse the process towards the abolition of nuclear weapons”.

At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, Norway stated that, as “the ultimate implementation” of Article VI of the treaty, a nuclear-weapon-free world would need “an additional legal instrument”. It also observed that the question of a nuclear weapons convention is becoming “increasingly relevant and important”, and argued that there will likely be more discussions on this matter in times to come. In the First Committee in October 2010, it argued that the “overall objective of the NPT must, eventually, be codified in a legally binding instrument”.

In March 2013 the Norwegian government hosted a conference that brought together 128 states, UN agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and other relevant stakeholders for a fact-based discussion on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Norway has noted that, throughout the history of the UN, “we have seen the humanitarian perspective grow stronger in international politics”. However, “rarely” have nuclear weapons been seen in this light. “This might be about to change, and rightly so,” it commented in the First Committee in 2012.

Norway endorsed a joint statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, and argued in its national statement that the humanitarian dimension “must be at the core of all our deliberations regarding nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation”. It noted that, until now, “there has been no global arena in which to begin to discuss these issues”. It described the “broad and active participation” at the Oslo conference as a reflection of “the recognition that the catastrophic effect of a nuclear detonation is an issue of concern and relevance to all”. It welcomed Mexico’s offer to host a conference “to further discuss these issues”.

+ Oman

SUPPORTIVE

Oman votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Pakistan

SUPPORTIVE*

“The international community should immediately start negotiations on a convention for the elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame.”

Khalil Hashmi, Permanent Mission to the UN, 2012

Pakistan has expressed support for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012, it argued that the “international community should immediately start negotiations on a convention for the elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame”. It has also called on the Conference on Disarmament to “get on with its job of negotiating a convention on nuclear disarmament”.

In 2011 it argued that the “raison d’être” of the CD is to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention. It spoke positively of the UN Secretary-General’s five-point proposal on nuclear disarmament, in particular his call for states to consider negotiating a nuclear weapons convention. It criticized the “major nuclear-weapon states” for their failure to heed the Secretary-General’s call by blocking “the emergence of consensus” on a convention.

In October 1997, prior to its first nuclear test, Pakistan’s foreign minister argued that “nuclear weapons must be banned and eliminated just as chemical and biological weapons have been prohibited”, and called on governments to adopt, “as a first step”, a “universal and legally binding multilateral agreement committing all states to the objective of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons”.

Pakistan attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 46% of Pakistanis support an agreement to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons, with 41% opposed.

* Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons and, like all other nuclear-armed nations, has shown no genuine commitment to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. Instead, it continues to invest heavily in the build-up of its nuclear forces, with a clear intention to retain them for many decades to come. Its stated support for a treaty banning nuclear weapons should be considered in light of these realities.

+ Palau

OPPOSED

Palau votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Panama

SUPPORTIVE

Panama votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Papua New Guinea

SUPPORTIVE

Papua New Guinea votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Paraguay

SUPPORTIVE

Paraguay votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Peru

SUPPORTIVE

Peru supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the Conference on Disarmament in 2011, it suggested that member states negotiate a nuclear weapons convention as proposed by Costa Rica and Malaysia. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to such a convention, and endorsed a joint statement in the First Committee in 2012 calling for intensified efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons.

At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it argued that a prohibition on the use and possession of nuclear weapons is the only way to achieve their complete elimination. It endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.

+ Philippines

SUPPORTIVE

“Now is the time to set in motion negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention … the only comprehensive, universal and non-discriminatory way towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.”

Libran Cabactulan, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2013

The Philippines supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It believes that “the best way to achieve our goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world is through a nuclear weapons convention that declares nuclear weapons, their use and their possession, as illegal”. It has said that it “is ready to support efforts on the creation of a convention that establishes a definitive time frame for the elimination of nuclear weapons”.

At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it argued that a convention “is the only comprehensive, universal and non-discriminatory way towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons”. It called for an international conference to be held “in the near future that will set the parameters for the elimination of nuclear weapons and prohibit their production, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use”. It said that the high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament at the UN to be held in September 2013 might be “a good opportunity to drum up support for such a convention”.

In September 2010 it urged the Conference on Disarmament to commence discussions on a nuclear weapons convention in a subsidiary body to be created “at the soonest opportunity”. More recently it called on the CD to adopt a programme of work that is balanced and “gives due attention to all the core issues”, particularly the need to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, “including a nuclear weapons convention”.

In the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in October 2011, it called on states to “seriously consider the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention whether this be done in the CD or elsewhere”. It has said that, of all the actions set out in the 2010 NPT review conference final document, it “gives particular importance” to the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention. It was a lead sponsor of a draft General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling for the immediate commencement of negotiations leading to such a convention, and in 2012 it endorsed a joint statement urging states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons.

The Philippines participated in the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and welcomed Mexico’s offer to host a follow-up conference. At the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and said that now is the time to set in motion negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention. It rejected the claim by some states that such negotiations would move the focus away from the NPT: “Quite the contrary, it could get the ball rolling, as it ensures full implementation of the NPT.”

+ Poland

OPPOSED

Poland votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, as it believes that nuclear disarmament is best achieved through a gradual process of practical steps, not a comprehensive approach. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Portugal

OPPOSED

Portugal votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, as it believes that nuclear disarmament is best achieved through a gradual process of practical steps, not a comprehensive approach. In a letter sent to ICAN in April 2012, it said that it shared the “final goal a world free of nuclear weapons” but considered that the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons “does not put forward the most appropriate way to achieve an effective nuclear disarmament”. Portugal attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Qatar

SUPPORTIVE

“We hope that we will not wait long before we celebrate a universal treaty for disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons, for this has legal and political importance.”

Nasser Bin Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2010

Qatar supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it stressed the importance of adopting the disarmament action plan put forward by the Non-Aligned Movement, which called for an international conference to achieve agreement on a ban. It expressed its hope that the world would not wait long before being able to celebrate “a universal treaty for disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons”. Qatar attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Republic of Korea

ON THE FENCE

The Republic of Korea, or South Korea, abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it applauded the UN Secretary-General for his leadership in rekindling discussions on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, including through his five-point plan, which calls on governments to consider a nuclear weapons convention as a way of fulfilling their legal obligation to disarm. At the NPT preparatory committee meeting in 2012, it highlighted the risk of accidental nuclear war and its “indiscriminate catastrophic consequences”. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 86% of South Koreans support a global ban on nuclear weapons.

+ Romania

ON THE FENCE

Romania abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Russia

OPPOSED

Russia votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It has said that it “is open to a dialogue on nuclear disarmament” but “further steps towards nuclear disarmament could be taken only when the principle of equal and indivisible security for all is in place”. Together with the other Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear-weapon states, Russia boycotted the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 69% of Russians support a ban on nuclear weapons, with 14% opposed.

+ Rwanda

SUPPORTIVE

Rwanda votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Saint Kitts & Nevis

SUPPORTIVE

Saint Kitts and Nevis votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Saint Lucia

SUPPORTIVE

Saint Lucia votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Saint Vincent & the Grenadines

SUPPORTIVE

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Samoa

SUPPORTIVE

Samoa votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. In the 2012 session of the First Committee, it endorsed a joint statement calling for “intensified efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons”. It endorsed a similar statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013.

+ San Marino

SUPPORTIVE

San Marino votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ São Tomé and Príncipe

SUPPORTIVE

São Tomé and Príncipe votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Saudi Arabia

SUPPORTIVE

Saudi Arabia votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Senegal

SUPPORTIVE

“The adoption of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons as mentioned in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be a step towards nuclear disarmament.”

Abdou Salam Diallo, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2011

Senegal supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it called on governments to consider ways and means to arrive at such a treaty. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It stated in the First Committee in 2011 that “the adoption of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons as mentioned in Article VI of the NPT will be a step towards nuclear disarmament”. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Serbia

SUPPORTIVE

Serbia votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In April 2013 it endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. In March 2013 it attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

+ Seychelles

SUPPORTIVE

The Seychelles votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Sierra Leone

SUPPORTIVE

Sierra Leone supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it argued that the testing, possession, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons should be banned, and it endorsed a joint statement in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in 2012 calling for intensified efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. It was also a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling for immediate negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Singapore

SUPPORTIVE

“There must be progress on … a nuclear weapons convention.”

Leonard Lin, Permanent Mission to the UN, 2011

Singapore votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It has urged states to make “progress on all issues before the Conference on Disarmament”, including a convention. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

+ Slovakia

OPPOSED

Slovakia votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. However, at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it said that it pays “due attention [to] and seriously consider[s] the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons”, and it would continue “to support the process that would lead to the total elimination of nuclear arsenals”. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Slovenia

ON THE FENCE

“Slovenia does not object to the future of the [nuclear weapons] convention, which fits well into the framework of nuclear disarmament. We sincerely hope that the international community will find an adequate format and a forum that will properly address this important initiative.”

Milan Balazic, Ambassador to Australia, 2012

Slovenia believes that “the initiative to start negotiations on the convention on the comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons should be given appropriate time to mature”. In a letter sent to ICAN in September 2012, the nation’s president, Danilo Türk, argued that “the path towards this final goal is to act globally and make progress step by step”. It believes that, before opening negotiations on such a treaty, the international community should complete negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty and make the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty universal. However, it is not opposed to negotiating a convention at some point in the future. Slovenia attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Solomon Islands

SUPPORTIVE

The Solomon Islands votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Somalia

SUPPORTIVE

Somalia votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ South Africa

SUPPORTIVE

“A world free from nuclear weapons would require the underpinning of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument that would ban the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction.”

Michiel Combrink, Permanent Mission to the UN at Geneva, 2011

South Africa supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It believes that, in order to achieve and maintain a nuclear-weapon-free world, “it is incumbent upon us all to begin timely preparations that will culminate in the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention or a framework or set of instruments for the complete and sustainable elimination of nuclear weapons”. In the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012, it endorsed a joint statement urging all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons.

It has argued that a world without nuclear weapons will require “the underpinning of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument that would ban the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons” and provide for their destruction within a specified time frame, either in the form of a nuclear weapons convention or a mutually reinforcing set of instruments.

It participated in the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and welcomed Mexico’s offer to host a follow-up conference. It said that “we stand ready to contribute to and to support further efforts” towards a nuclear-weapon-free world. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it delivered a statement on behalf of 80 nations highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. It warned that “[a]s long as these weapons exist … humanity will continue to face the threat of catastrophe and mass annihilation”.

+ South Sudan

SUPPORTIVE

South Sudan votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Spain

OPPOSED

Spain votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, as it believes that nuclear disarmament is best achieved through a gradual process of practical steps, not a comprehensive approach. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Sri Lanka

SUPPORTIVE

“We continue to stress that states should move forward towards total elimination and the absolute ban of the nuclear arsenal.”

Ravinatha Aryasinha, Permanent Representative to the UN at Geneva, 2013

Sri Lanka supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it stressed that “states should move forward towards total elimination and the absolute ban of the nuclear arsenal”. In the Conference on Disarmament in March 2013, it encouraged member states “to negotiate the comprehensive nuclear weapons convention”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to such a convention. Sri Lanka attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Sudan

SUPPORTIVE

Sudan supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it argued that nuclear weapons should be banned completely and immediately. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Suriname

SUPPORTIVE

Suriname votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Swaziland

SUPPORTIVE

Swaziland votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Sweden

ON THE FENCE

Sweden votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. However, in a radio interview in May 2013, the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, described the call for a ban treaty as “placard politics”, and argued that “with this approach we will not get any response from the serious powers”. He was dismissive also of an 80-nation initiative at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

In response to questions asked in the Swedish parliament in relation to the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons hosted by the Norwegian government in March 2013, which Sweden attended, the foreign minister said that “[i]t is obvious that the use of nuclear weapons would have disastrous humanitarian consequences” and, for this reason, Sweden will continue to work to ensure that these weapons are never used again.

In the Conference on Disarmament, Sweden has acknowledged that, “as the disarmament process continues towards global zero”, governments will reach a point where all major players accept the need for a negotiated multilateral legal regime beyond the NPT, “an even grander bargain”. However, it has been unwilling in recent years to advocate the start of negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons, despite loud and persistent calls from Swedish civil society.

It votes in favour of the annual General Assembly resolution titled “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”, but has said that, in its view, the reference in the resolution text to the model nuclear weapons convention prepared by civil society is “done without prejudice to any future negotiating process on a nuclear weapons convention, or on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments”. Sweden is no longer a member of the New Agenda Coalition.

+ Switzerland

SUPPORTIVE

“The Swiss government is engaged in pushing for the delegitimization of nuclear weapons as a preparatory step for a ban on nuclear weapons.”

Eveline Widmer Schlumpf, President, 2012

Switzerland supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it stated that “ultimately the question of banning nuclear weapons by a new convention”, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General in his five-point plan on nuclear disarmament, “must be addressed”. It delivered a joint statement on behalf of 35 nations in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling upon all states to intensify their efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons.

It has argued that, if states are serious about “achieving global zero and bolstering nuclear non-proliferation”, “a new approach is required towards a comprehensive legal instrument that can outlaw, once and for all, the most inhumane weapons ever invented”. It believes that we need to prohibit nuclear weapons “for all states, not just for some”, and a nuclear weapons convention is “the only sustainable way to eliminate the nuclear threat”. It remains “convinced of the necessity to create a legally binding instrument to ban nuclear weapons”.

Switzerland is a leading advocate of a humanitarian-based approach to nuclear disarmament, noting that “[n]o state would be immune from the catastrophic consequences” of the use of nuclear weapons. It said in the First Committee in 2012 that “[d]eveloping stronger and more far-reaching international instruments to ban the use of nuclear weapons and eliminate them, like all other weapons of mass destruction, is … an imperative”. It has taken “various initiatives to delegitimize nuclear weapons as a preparatory step towards additional legally binding nuclear disarmament instruments”.

Switzerland believes that “a better understanding of the humanitarian impact of nuclear explosions will pave the way to a multilateral process to prohibit nuclear weapons based on their destructive, indiscriminate and inhumane nature”. It welcomed the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013 and Mexico’s offer to host a follow-up conference, noting that “[a]spects related to health, development or the environment have previously never been at the centre of discussions on nuclear disarmament”. By changing the terms of the debate, we can more effectively advance “the delegitimization of nuclear weapons”.

It has described the Oslo conference as “perfectly consistent with the spirit of the final document of the 2010 [NPT] review conference”, which had introduced the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament “as a new avenue to be explored to facilitate the implementation of Article VI of the NPT”. At the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it endorsed a joint statement read by South Africa that highlighted the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

In response to a parliamentary interpellation in May 2012, the Swiss government said that it is “convinced that the prohibition of nuclear weapons will require the adoption of legally binding and effective agreements” and it is “committed to the commencement of multilateral negotiations in this direction and supports the holding of preparatory activities”. The nation’s president, Eveline Widmer Schlumpf, wrote in a letter to ICAN in October 2012 that the “government is engaged in pushing for the delegitimization of nuclear weapons as a preparatory step for a ban on nuclear weapons”.

+ Syria

SUPPORTIVE

Syria votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.

+ Tajikistan

SUPPORTIVE

Tajikistan typically votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Tanzania

SUPPORTIVE

“The immediate launch of negotiations for … a nuclear weapons convention … would add value to our collective commitment of eliminating nuclear weapons.”

Ombeni Y. Sefue, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2010

Tanzania supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in October 2010, it argued that the “immediate launch of negotiations” for a nuclear weapons ban “would add value to our collective commitment to eliminating nuclear weapons”. In October 2011 it argued that negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban “must take place without further delay”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention, and endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013 on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

+ Thailand

SUPPORTIVE

“We look forward to the commencement of negotiations on a … nuclear weapons convention.”

Jakkrit Srivali, Permanent Mission to the UN, 2012

Thailand supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention. It endorsed a joint statement in the General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling for intensified efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons, and said that it “look[ed] forward to the commencement of negotiations on a … nuclear weapons convention”.

Thailand participated in the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013. It said that the Oslo conference “further illustrated the devastating effect of the use of nuclear weapons” and expressed hope that “such abhorrent scenarios have rendered any contemplation to engage nuclear arsenals as … unthinkable”. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 67% of Thais support a nuclear weapons ban, with 8% opposed.

+ Timor-Leste

SUPPORTIVE

Timor-Leste supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2010 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2005, it submitted a working paper together with five other nations calling on all states to fulfil their legal obligation to disarm by concluding a treaty that prohibits and eliminates nuclear weapons.

+ Togo

SUPPORTIVE

Togo votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Tonga

SUPPORTIVE

Tonga votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013, it endorsed a joint statement highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

+ Trinidad & Tobago

SUPPORTIVE

Trinidad and Tobago votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Tunisia

SUPPORTIVE

We call on nuclear-weapon states to start negotiations on a phased programme for the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals through a nuclear weapons convention.”

Ghazi Jomaa, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2010

Tunisia supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it called on the nuclear-weapon states to launch negotiations on a phased programme for the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals through a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Turkey

OPPOSED

Turkey votes against UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 65% of Turks support a ban on nuclear weapons, with 10% opposed. Turkey attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it said that it “looks forward to actively participating in the follow-up” to the Oslo conference. It “believes that a robust awareness should be raised … so that future generations do not have to fear … nuclear weapons”.

+ Turkmenistan

SUPPORTIVE

Turkmenistan votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Tuvalu

SUPPORTIVE

Tuvalu votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Uganda

SUPPORTIVE

Uganda votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Ukraine

SUPPORTIVE

“Ukraine … supports the call for the immediate adoption of a comprehensive international agreement on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.”

Mykola Maimeskul, Permanent Representative to the UN at Geneva, 2013

Ukraine considers “the total elimination of nuclear weapons to be the only absolute guarantee against the scourge of nuclear warfare and supports the call for the immediate adoption of a comprehensive international agreement on the prohibition of nuclear weapons”. It has argued that “the step-by-step process of reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons must be developed in the wider framework of the comprehensive approach to nuclear disarmament”.

At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it expressed its regret that the P5 nuclear-weapon states had chosen not to attend, and said that it expected the forum to “make a small but a very important step towards a safer world”. It endorsed a joint statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 80% of Ukrainians support a ban on nuclear weapons, with 7% opposed.

+ United Arab Emirates

SUPPORTIVE

The troubling humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons should further be highlighted to facilitate a process of disarmament based on banning the use and ownership of nuclear weapons.”

Faris Al Mazrouei, Assistant Minister for Security and Military Affairs, 2013

The United Arab Emirates supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It has called on states to agree on a comprehensive and balanced programme of action in the Conference on Disarmament, including “a convention on the final disposition of nuclear weapons by 2025 as a time frame to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons”.

At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it argued that “the strong consensus of the international community on the troubling humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons should further be highlighted to facilitate a process of disarmament based on banning the use and ownership of nuclear weapons”. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in April 2013, it expressed support for international efforts to address the nuclear weapons threat from a humanitarian perspective.

+ United Kingdom

OPPOSED

The United Kingdom is opposed to the idea of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. In August 2011 the prime minister, David Cameron, wrote that he did not agree “that negotiations now on a nuclear weapons convention should be the immediate means of getting us to a world free of nuclear weapons”. However, he acknowledged that such a convention “could ultimately form the legal underpinning for this endpoint”, but the prospects of reaching agreement on a convention “are remote at the moment”.

The United Kingdom’s priority is to reach consensus on the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to start negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty. It believes that “until the necessary political and security conditions are in place, attempts to establish a new conference or body would risk diverting political capital and resources away from the NPT”, which it considers to be “the best vehicle we have for creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons”.

A 2009 government policy paper argued that, although a nuclear weapons convention will “likely be necessary to establish the final ban on nuclear weapons”, it would at present be “premature and potentially counter-productive” to focus efforts on such a treaty “when the many other conditions necessary to enable a ban have yet to be put in place”. In June 2010 it stated that “the idea of a nuclear weapons convention is a fine one”, but “a whole series of things need to be done before one comes to the happy situation where the nuclear world is disarmed, and a convention could then get full support”.

Together with the other Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear-weapon states, the United Kingdom boycotted the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, hosted by the Norwegian government. While it considered the topic under discussion to be “a serious one”, it said that it disagreed “on the issue of the legitimacy of nuclear weapons and that a ban on such weapons is the right way to move us closer to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons”.

It expressed its concern “that the Oslo event will divert attention and discussion away from what has been proven to be the most effective means of reducing nuclear dangers – a practical, step-by-step approach that includes all those who hold nuclear weapons”. In response to questions raised about the Oslo conference in parliament, the senior minister of state said that the most effective multilateral forums for reducing nuclear dangers are the Conference on Disarmament and NPT review meetings. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 81% of Britons support a ban on nuclear weapons, with 17% opposed.

+ United States

OPPOSED

The United States is opposed to the idea of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it argued that a nuclear weapons convention is not achievable in the near term and therefore is not a realistic alternative to the step-by-step approach to disarmament currently under way. It also argued that “trying to combine all the issues into a single negotiation” would be “a formula for deadlock”, and expressed concern that such an effort would distract energy and attention from “practical steps”.

It believes that it is not possible to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention before negotiating, for example, a fissile materials cut-off treaty. In the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in October 2010, it expressed support for “a pragmatic step-by-step approach” to nuclear disarmament “rather than the impractical leap of seeking to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention”. At a UN conference in Japan in 2011, it said that “unfortunately” it could not support a nuclear weapons convention “at this time”.

Together with the other NPT nuclear-weapon states, the United States boycotted the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, describing it as diverting attention, discussion and energy away from the practical step-by-step approach, which it considers to be the most effective way to “stabilize and reduce nuclear dangers”. A public opinion poll in 2008 showed that 77% of Americans support a treaty banning nuclear weapons, with 20% opposed.

+ Uruguay

SUPPORTIVE

“Uruguay supports all efforts to negotiate a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.”

Jose Luis Cancela, Permanent Representative to the UN, 2013

Uruguay supports “all efforts to negotiate a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons”. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention. It endorsed a joint statement in the General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 calling for intensified efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons and a similar statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013.

+ Uzbekistan

On the fence

Uzbekistan abstains from voting on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

+ Vanuatu

SUPPORTIVE

I wish to show my full support … for a common effort to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons to ensure the safety of humankind around the world.”

Iolu Johnson Abil, President, 2012

Vanuatu supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it affirmed its belief that “the total abolition of nuclear arms, testing and stockpiling by those in possession of them is the only way to secure a nuclear-free world”. In a letter sent to ICAN in October 2012, the nation’s president, Iolu Johnson Abil, expressed his full support “for a common effort to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons and ensure the safety of humankind around the world”.

+ Venezuela

SUPPORTIVE

Venezuela supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2010 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it described the testimonies of atomic bomb and nuclear test victims as a poignant reminder “of the urgent need for the total elimination of nuclear weapons”.

+ Viet Nam

SUPPORTIVE

Viet Nam supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. In the General Assembly’s First Committee in October 2010, it expressed its support for the UN Secretary-General’s five-point nuclear disarmament plan, which includes consideration of a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.

+ Yemen

SUPPORTIVE

“We call for the prohibition of the use or threat to use nuclear weapons until we reach complete abolition of nuclear weapons.”

Abdullah Fadhel Al-Saadi, Permanent Mission to the UN, 2010

Yemen supports a treaty banning nuclear weapons. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010, it urged states to negotiate a ban on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and ultimately to accomplish their complete elimination. Together with five other nations, it submitted a working paper to the previous NPT review conference, held in 2005, calling on all states to fulfil their legal obligation to disarm by commencing negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention. It attended the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, and endorsed a joint statement on the same topic at the NPT preparatory committee meeting in April 2013.

+ Zambia

SUPPORTIVE

“It is for our good and the good of the future generations to ban this indiscriminate weapon. Clearly, there is no benefit to humanity of having or developing nuclear weapons … We reiterate our call to completely and totally ban nuclear weapons.”

Encyla Sinjela, Permanent Representative to the UN at Geneva, 2013

Zambia supports negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapon. At the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013, it expressed its regret that, despite other categories of weapons of mass destruction having been banned, nuclear weapons – “which are perhaps the most destructive weapons of mass destruction and the most likely to cause indiscriminate harm to human beings and the environment” – are not yet subject to any universal prohibition agreement.

It described the Oslo conference as “the beginning of a journey to a nuclear-free world”, and an initiative that would “go a long way in ensuring that decisive and practical measures” would be taken towards achieving that goal. It joined other countries in “calling for a complete and total ban on nuclear weapons and for the establishment of a nuclear weapons convention aimed at compelling those who have developed these weapons and those who are planning to build, stockpile and use these weapons to get rid of them”.

Zambia signed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly’s First Committee in 2012 highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and calling upon all states to “intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons”. It endorsed a similar statement at the Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in 2013.

+ Zimbabwe

SUPPORTIVE

Zimbabwe votes in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was a lead sponsor of a draft resolution in 2011 calling upon all states immediately to commence multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.


  • sheen

    «Si Gandhi y Martin Luther King hijo estuvieran vivos hoy, formarían parte de ICAN».

    Martin Sheen Actor y activista

  • bankimoon

    «Felicito a ICAN por trabajar con tanto compromiso y creatividad en pos de un mundo libre de armas nucleares».

    Ban Ki-moon Secretario General de la ONU

  • yokoono

    “We can do it together. With your help, our voice will be made still stronger. Imagine peace.”

    Yoko Ono Artist

  • jodywilliams

    “Governments say a nuclear weapons ban is unlikely. Don’t believe it. They said the same about a mine ban treaty.”

    Jody Williams Nobel laureate

  • desmondtutu

    “With your support, we can take ICAN its full distance – all the way to zero nuclear weapons.”

    Desmond Tutu Nobel laureate

  • herbiehancock

    “Because I cannot tolerate these appalling weapons, I whole-heartedly support ICAN.”

    Herbie Hancock Jazz musician

  • hansblix

    “I am proud to support the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.”

    Hans Blix Weapons inspector

  • dalailama

    “I can imagine a world without nuclear weapons, and I support ICAN.”

    Dalai Lama Nobel laureate



Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /accounts/icanw/www/es.icanw.org/wp-content/plugins/kebo-twitter-feed/inc/get_tweets.php on line 257