posted 18th October
Foreign &
Commonwealth
Office
6 Oct 2008
Dear Alistair,
Thank you of your letter of 8th September on behalf of the Edinburgh Branch of the United Nations Association about the situation in Darfur.
I was sorry to learn of their volunteer’s ordeal and hope she is making a speedy recovery.
I share Edinburgh UNA’s concerns about the situation in Darfur. The UK utterly condemns the appalling acts of violence committed by all sides. We continue to be at the forefront of international efforts to bring lasting peace and security to Darfur. I share UNA’s frustration at the lack of progress and the continued suffering. This underlines the urgent need to keep pressing for action with all international partners.
We are particularly concerned by the ongoing violence in Darfur. The disproportionate violence at Kalma camp on 25th August, which resulted in civilian casualties including women and children, was utterly unacceptable . We have pressed the Government of Sudan and the UN-African Union (AU) peacekeeping mission (UNAMID) to carry out an investigation into the circumstances. We and EU partners have underlined the need for full humanitarian access to be granted, to enable provision of aid and evacuation of those injured.
UNAMID is vital to restoring peace and stability to Darfur. UNAMID is seeking to improve security for internally displaced persons and to ensure humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can operate effectively. In recent months, UNAMID has significantly increased daylight patrols, for example to support women collecting firewood. Night patrols have also started. The UNAMID civilian element is meeting civil society and starting mine clearance tasks and education, including on human rights issues. But deployment of the mission remains slow and UNAMID is not yet in a position to fully fulfil its mandate of protecting civilians and ensuring humanitarian access.
We are pressing the Government of Sudan to co-operate fully with the UN and the AU over the deployment of UNAMID. The UK continues to support the UN’s efforts to fill shortfalls in the force, including through extensive lobbying for helicopters and other key units. On 19 March, the Prime Minister announced £4 million in UK support for training and equipping African troop contributing countries for UNAMID. In addition to our very substantial contribution to assessed costs, we are also providing pre-deployment training for UNAMID police. The UN Security Council, during its visit to Sudan in June, pressed the Government of Sudan to facilitate the full deployment of UNAMID. I followed up these issues with President Bashir during my visit to Sudan in July.
The UK is in addition committing considerable resources to help alleviate the immediate humanitarian crisis and will continue to push for full humanitarian access for NGOs operating in Darfur. We are the second largest donor of bilateral humanitarian assistance, having contributed over £334 million in humanitarian assistance to Sudan (including £174 million to Darfur) since April 2004. The International Development Secretary also announced a UK contribution of £40 million to the Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) on 19 March. The CHF is a pooled fund at the disposal of the UN’s Humanitarian Co-ordinator to allocate to the areas of greatest need across Sudan.
Ultimately, sustainable peace and security will only be achieved through a political process. We have strongly welcomed the appointment this summer of a UN-AU Chief Mediator for the Darfur political process, Djiril Bassole`, previously the Foreign Minister of Burkina Faso. The UK has committed £1 million to support the UN-AU to lead the process and we stand ready to support Basssole` in his efforts to reinvigorate the peace process. Securing a sustainable peace deal for Dafur also requires effective consultation and engagement with civil society. The UK is funding key positions within the mechanism for consulting, civil society, the Darfur-Darfur Dialogue and Consultation.
Lord Malloch-Brown and I visited New York last week for meetings with Sudanese
Vice –President Taha and other key international partners. We pressed for progress on the points above, in particular on the Darfur Peace Process, UNAMID deployment and wider prospects for peace in Sudan, including full implementation of the CPA and free and fair elections in 2009.
The UK remains committed to a peaceful and prosperous Sudan. We will continue to play a leading role in international efforts to work towards a peaceful future for Darfur.
Yours,
David Miliband
posted 13th August,2008
UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION
(Edinburgh Branch)
Member of Parliament, Flat 3,
House of Commons, 91, Henderson Row,
Westminster, Stockbridge,
London SW1A 0AA Edinburgh EH3 5BH
Copies to: Dr. G Donn JP., Convenor
The President UNA-Iran 1st August, 2008
Dear Member of Parliament
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Iran
We are pleased to forward you a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in celebration of the 60th Anniversary of its proclamation. Do please spare a little time to reflect on the extent to which it has indeed become universal and the extent to which it remains a vision – even in Britain ?
We have also enclosed copies of recent correspondence on Iran:
a letter that our Honorary Secretary, Liz Sim wrote as a private individual to the
Foreign Secretary ;
a copy of a letter we received from the MOD describing HMG’s position on
’Iran’;
a copy of our recent reply. When we received the MOD’s letter we sent a copy to our
colleagues in UNA Iran. Our delay in replying to the MOD was due to our wish to
incorporate UNA Iran’s response.
Our recognition of Iranians as fellow humans with similar aspirations to ourselves is the difference between Edinburgh UNA and the MOD.
With best wishes for a pleasant summer,
(a.f.gaines@strath.ac.uk Edinburgh UNA Nuclear Non-Proliferation Working Group)
UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION
(Edinburgh Branch)
Mr Simon Harfield, Flat 3,
Ministry of Defence 91, Henderson Row,
Whitehall, Stockbridge,
London Edinburgh EH3 5BH
Your Reference: TO01818/2008
Copies to: Dr.G. Donn JP., Convenor
Each of Scotland’s MPs
All MPs in the All Party UN Group
UNA-Iran 1st August, 2008
Dear Mr. Harfield,
IRAN
We greatly appreciated your thoughtful and constructive letter (8 May 2008). As perhaps you expected, we e-mailed a copy (without your address) to our friends in UNA Iran. We have delayed replying to you until they had discussed your letter.
Your thinking appears to make little distinction between the Iranian Government and the diverse 70 million Iranian population. Constructive though your letter undoubtedly is, your thought seems – forgive me – slightly colonialist [Our Iranian friends say, “Western countries should respect Iranian independence”]. Iran was attacked by an Iraq possessing arms from the West. Whose view of ‘regional security’ should we be considering? How are we helping Iran to fell safe? There is no mention in your letter of the natural friendship between Shia communities in the Middle East and no consideration either of Iran’s 20 year request for a nuclear-weapons-free-Middle-East or of the many Iranians who abhor nuclear weapons, including the senior cleric who pronounced a fatwa against their possession.
You are justifiably righteous about Iran’s relationship with the IAEA but what about Britain’s relationship with the NPT? If Britain replaces its Trident Missiles we are conniving with the US to break Article 1 of the NPT. When we, ourselves, go to Iran later this year what evidence can we give that Britain’s Trident missiles are neither aimed nor prepared for firing ? What evidence can we offer that Britain has reduced the numbers of its missiles to ~160 ? Can we tell Iranians that the IAEA inspects Faslane?
Our Iranian friends e-mailed that your letter contained no facts that were not available in their own media (as I expect our Embassy will confirm?). They picked out the reference to human rights and terrorism in your first paragraph as being matters of more consequence in the long run than the nuclear issue. They take human rights very seriously themselves, a concern on which they admit Iran to be “fragile”. They continue, “ By mutual understanding and in a friendly manner based on mutual respect many unsolvable problems can be solved” and they state that the UK and the Iranian Governments “should provide facilities for civil societies and NGOs to work together in order to reduce the risk of war in the Middle East.”“
We, ourselves, hope to visit Tehran in October. We shall discuss holding Model UN General Assemblies involving exchanges of school-children between Tehran and Edinburgh and we shall take the opportunity to invite a distinguished Iranian to be amongst the KeyNote Lecturers at a Conference , “Civil Society and the NPT”, that we are holding in the Scottish Parliament next Spring.
(a.f.gaines@strath.ac.uk Edinburgh UNA, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Working Group)
posted 9th July,2008
Mark Lazarowicz Esq. MP., Foreign &
House of Commons Commonwealth
Office
3rd June, 2008
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your letter to the Foreign Secretary on behalf of your constituent about Burma. I am replying as the Minister responsible for our relations with Burma.
Since 2 May, Cyclone Nargis has killed tens of thousands of people and left over a million homeless. We were extremely concerned at the obstruction of international aid efforts by the Burmese government, turning a natural disaster into a man-made catastrophe. The true extent of the tragedy grows each day. The UN estimates that 2.4 million people have been badly affected. Official Burmese figures claim 77,000 died and 56,000 are missing.
We asked members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to press Burma to allow more aid to reach its population in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Malloch Brown and I have been in regular contact with counterparts in the region. Lord Malloch Brown visited a number of ASEAN capitals including Rangoon on 16-18 May. The UK continues to pursue discussion of the situation at the UN and with other international partners. The Foreign Secretary discussed the situation with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in New York on 19 May before the Secretary general travelled to Burma.
ASEAN foreign ministers, including from Burma, agreed on 19 May to create a task force and a co-ordinating mechanism to channel aid into Burma and distribute it to victims of the cyclone. On 25 May the Secretaries General of the UN and ASEAN jointly chaired a donors conference in Rangoon that raised $50 million for the immediate relief effort. The Burmese regime confirmed they would grant international aid workers access to affected areas, It is vital that this promise is implemented. The unhindered arrival of aid experts should give new impetus to relief efforts.
Douglas Alexander, the Secretary of State for International Development, represented the UK at the conference. He stressed that “the Burmese authorities must turn their promises to the UN and ASEAN into action: to deliver assistance to those people whose voice remains unheard…The eyes of the world will be watching”.
An air bridge is now operating between Bangkok and Rangoon. Over 180 relief flights have landed in Rangoon since 6 May. The World Food Programme is flying in up to 80 tonnes of essential food supplies per day. The Government is doing all it can to help. We remain the biggest bilateral donor. The department for International Development (DfID) has pledged £17 million to help with the emergency relief effort, and a DfID emergency team is in Burma helping on the ground. UK aid, including flat-bottomed boats and plastic sheeting, has been and continues to be distributed.
We welcome China’s willingness to play a positive role and their offer of $15 million in aid. The Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Jiechi. There is no doubt that China is in a unique position to help bring about positive political change in Burma and to offer assistance in the wake of Cyclone Nargis and we are encouraged by the help they and others are currently providing.
Despite international appeals not to do so, the regime pressed ahead with its referendum on a new constitution on 10 May, and in areas affected by the cyclone on 24 May. The regime declared on 26 May that the constitution had been ratified with 92% of the population voting “yes” and a turnout of 98%. We concur with the assessment of the EU Presidency, in a statement on 29 May, that these results “lack credibility”.
We do not think this is the right time for the regime to be making decisions on Burma’s political future, and our views on the referendum are well known. As currently conceived, this is a process designed to entrench military rule. It will not deliver the peace, prosperity and national reconciliation Burma needs now, more than ever. For the proposed constitution to have credibility, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should have been released and allowed to participate – along with other political leaders and ethnic groups – in both drafting the constitution and the subsequent referendum campaign. We fear the regime’s attempts to exclude Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and others from the political process will only exacerbate tension and instability within Burma. On 28 April, the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council made a strong statement of the EU’s concerns on these issues. In a statement on the 27 May, the Foreign Secretary said he was saddened by the regime’s extension of Aung san Suu Kyi’s house arrest for a further 12 months. He urged the Burmese government to release her and to allow her to play her rightful role in the process of genuine national reconciliation.
The reports of continuing persecution against those who may have taken part in the September demonstrations are alarming. We want the regime to end ongoing arrests, release all political prisoners and engage in both a genuine process of reconciliation and a dialogue that is fully inclusive, not least of the ethnic groups.
On 2 May, under UK Chairmanship, the UN Security Council adopted a Presidential statement ahead of the 10 May referendum, reaffirming its resolution of 11 October and statement of 15 November 2007. These called on the Burmese regime to establish the conditions for and create an atmosphere conducive to an inclusive and credible political process, including full participation of all political and ethnic groups and respect for fundamental political freedoms. The UN Secretary General made clear on his return from Burma that he would not lose sight of these political objectives. We continue to give our full support to his good offices mission.
The UK has taken an active role in bringing Burma to the attention of the UN Human Rights Council. The resolution adopted unanimously by last October’s Special Session facilitated the first visit to Burma by Special Rapporteur Sergio Pinheiro in four years. Professor Pinheiro was able to investigate the violence perpetrated by the regime in September. We are disappointed that the regime has resisted pressure to allow Professor Pinheiro to return, but are pleased the Rapporteur’s mandate has been renewed and urge the regime to co-operate fully with him.
The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, other Ministers and I continue our efforts to ensure the international community does not forget the people of Burma.
We have kept in close contact with our partners in the region to build up constructive pressure on the Burmese government to reform. We have discussed Burma on both a collective and individual basis with ASEAN member countries, emphasising the leading role they have to play in supporting reform in their fellow Member state.
We are working to increase regional and international pressure on the regime, while at the same time holding out the prospect of a better future for Burma should there be genuine moves towards political reconciliation, the restoration of democracy and respect for human rights. Our message to the government of Burma is that the international community stands ready to help with the immediate aftermath of the current humanitarian crisis, the longer term task of rebuilding infrastructure and shattered lives, and to put Burma on the path to a better future.
Further information, about both Burma and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Annual Report on Human Rights, is available on our website at www.fco.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Meg Munn
posted 9th July,2008
HOUSE OF COMMONS
19th June 2008
I know many of my constituents share my concerns about the pernicious roles of weapons in developing countries and elsewhere. I have been working with Nobel Prize Laureate Jody Williams on the grave impact of cluster bombs which maim and kill thousands of civilians. Jody won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her work to ban land mines and has been working tirelessly for a ban on cluster bombs. I last met her in January to discuss tactics for last months Dublin summit, and we were assured at that stage out Labour Government would be pressing for a ban. I am delighted that, in Dublin the UK Government committed us to a ban on the production, use and transfer of cluster bombs, on an international basis and to the destruction of existing stock.
*(As you know, I resigned from the Government over the issue of Trident, so I greatly value your support by signing the petition on the other side of this letter. Also below the petition I have printed a survey so I can evaluate your local and national concerns.)
If there are any other matters I can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With best wishes, Yours sincerely,
Nigel Griffiths MP.
“I Support Nigel Griffiths and Handicap International’s Ban Cluster Bombs’ Campaign by signing the following petition calling for
“ The UN and other governments to follow the UK Government’s lead in banning the production, use, and transfer of cluster bombs and the destruction of their existing stocks”
*not included here-please write directly to Nigel Griffiths.- web editor
posted 3rd June,2008
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Mr A.Gaines, Ministry of Defence,
Flat 3, Whitehall,
91, Henderson Row, London SW1A 2HB
Stockbridge,
Edinburgh EH3 5BH
8th May, 2008
Dear Mr. Gaines,
Thank you for your letter dated 3 April 2008 enclosing the report of the visit of the Iranian United Nations Association to Edinburgh. I have been asked to reply.
The UK government’s policy approach towards Iran aims to address a broad range of serious concerns including human rights, nuclear proliferation, Iran’s support for terrorism and its role in the wider Middle East region. This is challenging; our relationship with Iran is not an easy one, and our shared history has led to a background of mistrust. But we are keen for Iran to see that we are now a modern, multicultural society that respects Islam and is ready to learn from the lessons of history. Against this background we want a modern, mature relationship with Iran based on mutual respect – and we agree that a stable prosperous and responsible Iran is in the interest of Britain and the region. To make this relationship possible, Iran must show itself to be a responsible and accountable member of the international community willing to comply with international obligations and norms, whether on the nuclear issue, human rights or combating terrorism. Otherwise Iran risks confrontation with the international community and international isolation. Iran’s leaders must choose which path to take. We remain committed to diplomacy, dialogue and engagement with Iran, but that does not prevent us and the international community from maintaining pressure about legitimate concerns.
Iran had a secret nuclear programme for twenty years in direct non-compliance with its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).It has consistently failed to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over its nuclear programme, or to demonstrate that it is for exclusively peaceful purposes. Dr Mohammad El Baradei’s report of 15 November 2007 stated that
The IAEA’s knowledge about Iran’s current nuclear programme was diminishing, and called for more active co-operation from Iran to answer the uncertainties about Iran’s past nuclear activities. Although we support the right, under Article IV of the NPT, for countries to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes e.g. civil nuclear power, the UK government, along with the rest of the international community remains deeply concerned by Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
In response to these concerns the E3+3 group of countries (France, Germany, UK, China, Russia and US) is pursuing a twin-track approach, intended to apply pressure on Iran (through UN sanctions) to persuade it to engage in negotiations with the international community to address the concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme. The UK has been in the forefront of work on the resolutions imposing these measures, Resolutions 1737 and 1747. Given Iran’s continuing failure to comply fully with its international obligations, the UNSC agreed to a new sanctions resolution against Iran on 3 March. These sanctions do not at present target the oil and gas sector.
We believe economic sanctions are likely to be more effective when used in parallel with efforts to reach a negotiated resolution to the issue. We have no wish to deny Iran its rights under the NPT, provided it meets its obligations, and in June 2006, the E3+3 presented generous and far-reaching proposals to Iran. These offer a way forward that would give Iran everything it needs to develop a modern civil nuclear power industry, as well as political and economic benefits, while meeting international concerns. As part of the E3+3’s approach the EU High Representative, Javier Solana, met Iran’s chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in London on 30 November2007 to discuss a way forward. The proposals remain on the table.
We strongly believe that Iran has every right to pursue its own priorities and to be a stable and prosperous nation. We would welcome dialogue and engagement with Iran as it moves towards this. But Iran must also accept that it has responsibilities to its neighbours, to the region and to the wider international community. We cannot allow it to violate the terms of the NPT, defy UN Security Council Resolutions or undermine regional stability, and for as long as it does so we will continue to pursue diplomatic means to persuade it to stop.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
S.J.Harfield
Posted 21st April,2008
13 March 2008 Foreign &
Commonwealth
Office
The Rt. Hon Alistair Darling MP.,
House of Commons
London London SW1A 2AH
SW1A 0AA
From the Foreign Secretary
Dear Alistair,
Thank you for your letter of January 28 on behalf of your constituent about disarmament and non-proliferation.
This Government has repeatedly stressed its commitment to work for a world free from nuclear weapons. The UK has seen a reduction in the explosive power of its nuclear arsenal of 75 percent since the end of the cold war. The commitment outlined in the White Paper “ The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear deterrent” to reduce the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 160 has now been met. We continue to engage with both the US and Russia calling on them to reduce nuclear arsenals further and encouraging them to develop effective successor arrangements to the current bilateral arms reduction treaties.
We are pushing for negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty within the Conference on Disarmament, and calling on all states that have not yet done so to follow our example and sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We have also made clear our willingness to discuss with other states holding nuclear weapons confidence building measures on nuclear disarmament.
Work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston is now underway on the verification of the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. We also supported an in-depth study by the independent International Institute of Strategic studies (IISS) to help determine the requirements for the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. We expect the findings to be reported in an IISS Adelphi paper in summer 2009.
I apologise that on this occasion, FCO officials were unable to meet you and your guests. However, I hope your guests’ visit to Edinburgh proved successful.
Yours,
David
DAVID MILIBAND
MICHAEL MOORE MP
HOUSE O F COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA
UN Association (Edinburgh)
1 April 2008
Dear Alec,
Thank you for your further letter of 21st March regarding Iran and nuclear non-proliferation.
I very much agree with you that Iran should not be viewed as ‘monolithic’ and that engagement with Iran is the only way to overcome issues of concern, and I welcome the efforts of the Edinburgh branch of the UN Association in furthering dialogue with Iranian groups. Indeed, I have argued on numerous occasions that dialogue is the only way forward and that any talk of military action against Iran is a dangerous distraction.
However, I am afraid that we will have to disagree on the issue of sanctions, which I believe are a crucial component in international diplomacy and particularly in preventing diplomatic disputes from escalating into military conflicts. It should be remembered that Iran has only recently begun to co-operate with the IAEA following the imposition of such sanctions. It should also be remembered that these sanctions were supported unanimously in the Security Council, including by nations closer to Iran than the West has traditionally been. This highlights the degree of international concern over Iran’s nuclear programme.
I understand your point about a nuclear free Middle East –which I would also like to see. But that Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons does not legitimise Iran’s ambition to develop them. Moreover, while I remain opposed to nuclear weapons wherever they may be, these states are democracies firmly within the international community of nations. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their possession of nuclear weapons, it is almost inconceivable that hose weapons would ever be deployed in an aggressive manner. Iran, on the other hand, is a theocracy with scant regard for human rights and democracy and remains pitted against the international community across a wide range of issues. Indeed, that its President has called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’ gives reason for legitimate concern about Iran’s nuclear intentions.
Thank you again for contacting me on this issue. I wish you every success in your dialogue with your Iranian counterparts.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Michael
Michael Moore MP
Liberal Democrat Shadow International Development Secretary
UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION
(Edinburgh Branch)
Michael Moore MP., Flat 3,
House of Commons, 91 Henderson Row,
Westminster, Stockbridge,
London SW1A 0AA Edinburgh EH3 5BH
Your reference: BS/April08/Gaines 5th April, 2008
IRAN
It was kind of you to once more spare the time to send us your thoughts about Iran. You may recall that about a year ago in a letter to the Rt. Hon Des Browne we wrote,
“In reality, we all live together as normal humans in a small world. The foreigner is not ‘other’. As it happens, some of our members have lived abroad and worked professionally for years in strange surroundings. Sometimes they have been the first foreigner their friends have met. Our members know that people from different traditions and different religious backgrounds, accustomed to different foods, differing in manners and codes of behaviour and speaking different languages can work – happily – together for their common good (It may not be easy but that’s another story). There are hundreds of members of the diplomatic service, of the DfID and of such NGOs as OXFAM and VSO with wider experience than our own who will confirm this. No-one, be they Iranian, N. Korean, Israeli, Indian, Pakistani, French, Chinese, Russian or American wishes to attack Britain with nuclear weapons. When there is aggression it arises from lack of understanding and consequent fear (and this is what misguided, ambitious, charismatic leaders build on). We submit that rather than the MOD extolling the updating of the Trident system, Britain would be safeguarded better – against terrorists, against loss of essential resources and against the possibility of future threats – by updating our diplomacy. How come that Professor Ali Ansari (St Andrews University) could tell our Workshop that there are insufficient people at the FCO competent to carry out a real dialogue with Iran ? How come that Lord David Hannay could concur in this ?…”
It is in this spirit that we have engaged in collaboration with UNA-IRAN and we deeply appreciate your warm wishes for the success of our dialogue.
We are e-mailing your letter to our members and also to UNA –IRAN. You may be assured that we share your concern about democracy in Iran. If you care to glance at our web-site you will find a critique of the recent election in Iran – but you will also find a comparison with a more distant election run under the aegis of the West which suggests that Iran is indeed ‘getting there’ in its own way.
We also share your concern for human rights. Anyone who reads the resolutions adopted by consensus by the General Assembly must weep over the sadness of Iranian society.
And yet.
And yet, just as we oppose abuses of human rights in Britain .so UNA IRAN works to uphold human dignity in Iran. This year, our friends, with the support of the World Federation of United Nations Associations plan to use those General Assembly Resolutions as the basis for learning sessions with hundreds of schoolchildren and their teachers. UNA Iran will be reading this, just as you are, and we expect you will join us in hoping that the girls and boys they will be teaching will grow up to walk tall.
You can be sure of our support for your efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
a.f.gaines@strath.ac.uk
Edinburgh UNA, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Working Group