[Οι ΦΙΛΟΙ της ΦΥΣΗΣ θεωρούν απαράδεχτη τη "μία από τα ίδια" πολιτική της Ελλάδας στον ΟΗΕ για το θέμα της απαγόρευσης των πυρηνικών όπλων. Η Ελλάδα διαχρονικά απέχει ή καταψηφίζει προτάσεις για τη σύγκλιση συνέλευσης του ΟΗΕ για να συζητήσει την απαγόρευση των πυρηνικών όπλων.
Διαβάστε ΕΔΩ την επιστολή (19.05.2015) του Κώστα Φωτεινάκη προς τον Πρωθυπουργό κ.Αλέξη Τσίπρα με την οποία τον καλούσε "να συμπαραταχθεί με τις δυνάμεις που στηρίζουν την πλήρη απαγόρευση των πυρηνικών και να μη στηρίζει τις απόψεις των πυρηνικοκατόχων για μια δήθεν σταδιακή μείωση που παρατείνει το ισχύον καθεστώς"]
Η Ελλάδα στη Γενεύη ψήφισε ΟΧΙ για την απαγόρευση των πυρηνικών στον ΟΗΕ στις 19 Αυγούστου 2016
25Αυγούστου 2016
Κατά τη διάρκεια της τελικής συνάντησης της Συνόδου εργασίας στη Γενεύη για τον πυρηνικό αφοπλισμό που έγινε τον Αύγουστο, 107 κράτη υποστήριξαν
την σύγκλιση συνέλευσης το 2017 για να διαπραγματευθεί τα νομικώς
δεσμευτικά εργαλεία για την πλήρη απαγόρευση των πυρηνικών. Η πρόταση
υιοθετήθηκε στις 19 Αυγούστου με πλήρη υπερψήφιση. Η Ελλάδα δυστυχώς καταψήφισε την πρόταση.
ΕΔΩ HERE
This proposal formed the key recommendation in the working group’sreport, adopted on 19 August with overwhelming support.
ΕΔΩ HERE
This proposal formed the key recommendation in the working group’sreport, adopted on 19 August with overwhelming support.
Vote on the report
In the closing session of the working
group on 19 August, nations voted on whether to adopt the report. No
official record was taken of which nations voted yes or no, and which
abstained. The UN did not record the voting pattern, only the number of
yes, no, and abstention votes. However, below is an unofficial list compiled by ICAN of how governments voted.
Prior to voting on the report as a whole, nations voted on a proposal to
strengthen the key paragraph of the report relating to the negotiating
conference in 2017. That amendment was successful.
Yes (68)
Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas,
Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica,
Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea,
Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Kazakhstan,
Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico,
Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Qatar, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Togo,
Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
No (22)
Albania, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Poland,
Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey
Armenia, Finland, Georgia, Iceland, Japan, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine
Excerpts from the OEWG report
Key recommendation:
67. The working
group recommended with widespread support for the General Assembly to
convene a conference in 2017, open to all states, with the participation
and contribution of international organizations and civil society, to
negotiate a legally-binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons,
leading towards their total elimination …
Support for a ban treaty:
34. A majority of
states expressed support for the commencement of negotiations in the
General Assembly in 2017, open to all states, international
organizations and civil society, on a legally-binding instrument to
prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination, which
would establish general prohibitions and obligations as well as
political commitment to achieve and maintain a nuclear-weapon-free
world. Representatives of civil society supported this view.
Description of a ban treaty:
35. Possible
elements of such an instrument could include, inter alia, the following:
(a) prohibitions on the acquisition, possession, stockpiling,
development, testing and production of nuclear weapons; (b) prohibitions
on participating in any use of nuclear weapons, including through
participating in nuclear war planning, participating in the targeting of
nuclear weapons and training personnel to take control of nuclear
weapons; (c) prohibitions on permitting nuclear weapons in national
territory, including on permitting vessels with nuclear weapons in ports
and territorial seas, permitting aircraft with nuclear weapons from
being entering national airspace, permitting nuclear weapons from being
transited through national territory, permitting nuclear weapons from
being stationed or deployed on national territory; (d) prohibitions on
financing nuclear weapon activities or on providing special fissionable
material to any states that do not apply IAEA comprehensive safeguards;
(e) prohibitions on assisting, encouraging or inducing, directly or
indirectly, any activity prohibited by the treaty; and (f) recognition
of the rights of victims of the use and testing of nuclear weapons and a
commitment to provide assistance to victims and to environmental
remediation. It was noted that the elements and provisions to be
included in such an instrument would be subject to its negotiation.
36. A
legally-binding instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons would be an
interim or partial step toward nuclear disarmament as it would not
include measures for elimination and would instead leave measures for
the irreversible, verifiable and transparent destruction of nuclear
weapons as a matter for future negotiations. It would also contribute to
the progressive stigmatization of nuclear weapons. States supporting
such an instrument considered it to be the most viable option for
immediate action as it would not need universal support for the
commencement of negotiations or for its entry into force. It was
suggested that the United Nations high-level international conference,
to convene no later than 2018 pursuant to resolution 68/32, should
review progress of these negotiations.
Μαρία Αρβανίτη Σωτηροπούλου - ΠΗΓΗ
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου