Proposition One
ZIMBABWE'S PRESENTATION TO THE WORLD COURT 11/15/95
(continued)
(Mr. Jonathan Wutawunashe continues...)
President Clinton of the United States was on the mark, we
believe, with his opposition to the general notion of military
necessity when he praised Belarus for giving up nuclear weapons
on their soil. He said:
"It would have been easier to say 'these weapons make us
a great nation, they make us stronger, we will use them, we will
rattle them around as threats', but you made a better choice - to
live nuclear free." (Speech to the Academy of Sciences, Minsk. As
reported in the Christchurch Press, Aotearoa-New Zealand, 17
January 1994.)
We must heed statements of principle like this one. They do
help to form an international opinion on the nature of nuclear
weapons.
The necessity argument is even less defensible in light of
the development of modern delivery systems the accuracy of which
means that military targets can be destroyed without any
requirement of weapons of mass destruction, if there ever was
such a requirement. The nuclear States are the most advanced in
these weapons systems. Thus even military leaders such as Lord
Mountbatten, Lord Carver (former United Kingdom Chief of Defence
Staff) and Admiral Eugene Carroll (United States Navy ret.) have
said that there is no military necessity for nuclear weapons. A
United States Air Force General, who was the Head of Air
Operations in the Gulf War and the Head of the United States
Space Command, said in 1994:
"The nuclear weapon is obsolete; I want to get rid of
them all ... Think of the high moral ground we secure by having
none. It's kind of hard for us to say to North Korea, 'You are
terrible people, you're developing a nuclear weapon', when the
United States has thousands of them." (The Boston Globe, 16 July
1994.)
It should be noted that even if there was a hypothetical
situation in which a military target could not be destroyed
except with a nuclear weapon, and the nuclear States have given
no proof that there could be such a situation, the use of nuclear
weapons would still be illegal. Military necessity does not
override humanitarian laws of warfare.
Mr. President, the United Kingdom this morning (and in their
written submission as well) stretched the military necessity
argument when it claimed that, if a large military advantage were
at stake, high civilian losses and damages may be justified. The
Red Cross letter to the Court previously referred to, regarding
the 1977 Geneva Protocol, categorically opposed this argument,
stating that:
"This idea is contrary to the fundamental rules of the
Protocol; in particular it conflicts with Article 48 (Basic rule)
and paragraphs 1 and 2 of the present Article 51. The Protocol
does not provide any justification for attacks which cause
extensive civilian losses and damages. Incidental losses and
damages should never be extensive."
Article 48 referred to by the Red Cross provides:
"In order to ensure respect for and protection of the
civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the
conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian
population and combatants and between civilian objects and
military objects and accordingly shall direct their operations
only against military objects."
Paragraph 1 of Article 51 referred to by the Red Cross
provides:
"The civilian population and individual civilians shall
enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military
operations."
Paragraph 2 of Article 51, referred to by the Red Cross,
provides:
"Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of
which is to spread terror among the civilian population are
prohibited."
Even before 1977, it was a universally recognized principle
of humanitarian law that mass slaughter of civilians is illegal
no matter the provocation or military advantage which may be
gained.
The United Kingdom, France and the United States have argued
that even if they do not use nuclear weapons, the threat of their
use is necessary for deterrence. However, Zimbabwe is not alone
in its view that threat of use is neither necessary nor legal.
There are, we believe, many better ways to prevent war than
threatening to destroy one's potential opponent. The United
Nations Charter sets out some of these ways, including recourse
to this Court. Subsequent United Nations resolutions on the
establishment of international, regional and national conflict
resolution mechanisms add to these methods. In addition, the fact
that all of the nuclear States have been involved in wars since
1945 indicates that nuclear deterrence has not kept the peace
("Wars and Related War Deaths", World Military and Social
Expenditures, Ruth Leger Sivard, World Priorities 1993). Zimbabwe
supports the arguments made by other States, including Costa
Rica, that nuclear weapons do not provide for peace and security,
but on the contrary, threaten peace and security.
I would add, Mr. President, with respect to the theories of
deterrence and the doctrines derived from them, that it seems to
us to be a curious distortion of logic first to create a new
level, a new more dangerous level, of armaments raising warfare
to new destructively imaginative levels and then to argue that
one has kept the peace at a higher and more dangerous level, and
to seek to persuade others to accept that for the last 50 or so
years this new and more dangerous and potentially genocidal level
of armaments should be credited with keeping peace.
Mr. President, while it is true that a minority of States
have relied on nuclear deterrence as part of their security
doctrine, that does not prove its necessity or legality. The
minority of States which engage in torture, arbitrary detention
and other forms of gross human rights violations are in the habit
of justifying these practices as necessary for their national
security, a proposition that has never been accepted by the vast
majority of human-rights-respecting States.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, Zimbabwe has played a
key role in the negotiations for an African treaty establishing a
nuclear-free zone in our region. Such a treaty is expected to be
concluded in the near future. The United Kingdom and the United
States have argued that the conclusion of treaties prohibiting
the possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons in specific
regions suggests that there is therefore no general prohibition
against the threat or use of nuclear weapons, and that parties to
these regional treaties accept this. Zimbabwe contends that this
is manifestly incorrect, and if anything, the opposite is the
case, that is, that regional treaties are the gradual codifying,
through geographic regions, of a generally accepted prohibition
of nuclear weapons. These agreements and arrangements are
evidence of emerging legal norms that have a unique opportunity
now through global institutions to whom is ascribed the authority
and the role to assist in codifying them for those institutions
to play their role in the emergence of these legal norms.
Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, a number
of countries have referred to the importance of the Martens
Clause in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. This clause states
that in considering new weapons systems or methods of warfare,
the principles of customary international law and the dictates of
public conscience shall apply. The threat and use of nuclear
weapons violate both customary international law and the dictates
of public conscience.
With respect to the dictates of public conscience, Zimbabwe
draws the Court's attention to the 3 million declarations of
public conscience that were presented to the Court on 31 October.
Some of these declarations were from citizens from Zimbabwe. It
should be noted that many of these declarations were from
citizens from nuclear countries as well as from non-nuclear
countries.
In addition, there are many prominent citizens in nuclear
countries, including church leaders, military people, members of
parliament, and parliamentary initiatives supporting this
initiative and the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Zimbabwe would like to mention one in particular, the Nuclear
Disarmament and Economic Conversion Bill introduced into the
104th United States Congress as a result of a citizens'-initiated
referendum. United States Congress member and introducer of the
Bill, Eleanor Holmes Norton, sent a letter to this Court on 3
November 1995, describing the Bill and urging this Court to
"consider the legacy it will pass on to our children, and to
issue a strong opinion in favour of nuclear disarmament."
Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, Zimbabwe
supports the positive role this Court can play in the settling of
legal disputes and in answering legal questions of importance to
States and to humankind.
International law, and the adherence to it, is the foundation
from which a just international order can be built. International
law is based on the premise that States are equivalent in rights
and responsibilities, regardless of size, military power, race,
economic power and other forms of discriminatory influence.
Following the catastrophes of the two world wars, it became
imperative that a new world order based upon the force of law
rather than the law of force be constructed. The emergence of the
United Nations arose from the desire of the peoples of the world
for an end to the scourge of war and the desire for democratic
international institutions to ensure that justice and equality
eventuated.
Zimbabwe has faith in the independence and integrity of this
Court. In that respect, Zimbabwe, as Chair of the Non-Aligned
Movement, introduced a resolution to the United Nations General
Assembly in 1989, calling for a United Nations Decade of
International Law, with a primary aim of increasing reference to
and acceptance of the International Court of Justice. This
resolution was adopted by consensus.
Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, we are now
half way through the United Nations Decade of International Law.
While there has been an increase in cases referred to the Court,
there is still a long way to go to reach universal acceptance of
the Court's jurisdiction. The outcome of the present case could
have some influence in this regard. The Court has been made
evidently aware that the majority of States are of the opinion
that the Court should consider both questions put to it, and that
the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance is not
permitted - is not permitted and is not permissible - under
existing international law.
The large number of countries participating in the current
proceedings and the large citizen and academic support indicate
the importance of this case.
Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, the
imperative of the well-being and survival of whole nations,
indeed of the entire globe, places on all of us the duty to work
towards the creation of an international system based on morality
and law. Zimbabwe believes that our global institutions must play
a key role in this enterprise. In this instance, this venerable
Court must play its proper role and render an advisory opinion
that will help rid our world of these infernal weapons of mass
destruction. Earlier today, Mr. President, we heard references to
phantom legal instruments. I believe that the greatest danger
that is facing humankind today is that of having a shell of the
world left, inhabited by phantoms.
I thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Court, for this
opportunity to present the views of Zimbabwe.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Your Excellency, for your
statement. That concludes the oral argument by Zimbabwe.
As the 14 judges deliberate at The Hague, there is a global network spreading rapidly, dedicated to the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2000, appropriately called Abolition 2000. -->
Beginning of Zimbabwe Testimony
Current Events