Vedo - last day

So, this was this years PrepCom in Vienna. It was the first time for me attending a multilateral conference, as well as the first time in the UNO-headquarters. Hence I have received a lot of new impressions.

What has to be said about the last conference day? It didn’t last that long because all state parties who took the floor for the last time were unanimous that the PrepCom2012 was a full success. Many called it a big step towards the RevCon 2015, in relation to the consensus as well as to the atmosphere (as Pete told me this was not the case the last time the PrepCom took place in Vienna). This was in the view of all the speakers especially chairman Woolcoot’s merit, who did a wonderful job according to the state representatives.

Among others they praised the decision to focus also on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Even though there were some critical statements (China: developing missile defend systems is diametral to disarmament; Switzerland: Summary is good, but might have wanted some more aspects on their work) the overall opinion was altrough positive, so that the parties are looking forward to a equally successful PrepCom 2013 in Geneva.

In the end I want to thank all the readers who have visited our Blog during the two weeks. Stay informed and help us to free the world from nuclear weapons.

Your IFOR-Team Austria

Last day – Pete

Last Friday, May 11th 2012, the first Preparatory Committee to the 2015 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in Vienna came to an end. The delegates of the 186 State’s Parties to the treaty seemed to be quite satisfied with the outcome, there were lots of appreciative words for the Chair of the meeting, Ambassador Woolcott from Australia, and even some jokes. Mr. Woolcott had delivered his “factual summary” as a working paper (which means that there was no need to take a consensus decision on it) on Thursday evening, which was seen as an accurate summary of the discussions of the two weeks of the PrepCom. Besides the “usual” arguments on lack of progress on disarmament from some states, the insistence on compliance with the non-proliferation part of the Treaty by others and the affirmation of the “inalienable right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy” by third ones, there were also some crucial developments since 2010 highlighted in the report.

Firstly, the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons gain more attention once again – they used to be known much better in the 1950’s and 60’s, when the imminent threat of nuclear war was much higher than nowadays. This concern was most clearly expressed in a call by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent in 2011 on outlawing nuclear weapons “with urgency and determination”. Another important issue in the statement are concerns over continued modernization of nuclear arsenals and the development of new types of NW and their delivery systems, which are seen as a major obstacle to nuclear disarmament by many states. The 2012 Conference on a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, which was reported upon by the facilitator of the conference, Mr Jaako Laajava from the proposed host country, Finland, will be another cornerstone in the implementation of the NPT’s decisions of 2010. Finally, the Chairman’s report also reflects the lack of discussions on the dangers of nuclear energy, most prominently demonstrated in the 2011 Fukushima accident, which did not lead to critical reflections on the “peaceful use” of nuclear energy by most states (with few exemptions, which were not mentioned in the summary).

Of course, many NGOs present had a more critical evaluation of the results achieved. The political will to honestly think and talk about abolition of nuclear weapons – mainly from the 5 official NW states – once again was not credible enough. In this regard the first test will come up very soon, at the NATO summit in Chicago end of May, where we will see if there is considerable reduction of the role of NW in its strategy, or even talks on substantial disarmament, or if NATO will just go on as usual with their plans of modernization and continued reliance on NW. Another crucial timeline for the credibility of the NPT in particular and of world peace in general will be the developments of the situation in the Middle East: What will be the outcome of the discussions on Iran’s nuclear programme? And will a conference on a WMD free zone really take place this year, with ALL states of the region (including Israel and Iran, but also the countries going through transition or with a lot of uncertainty on their future at the moment) participating?

My hope in the governments to achieve these next two goals is not very profound, I must admit (although they have to play their important role in it), it is more in the people, who in their big majority don’t want nuclear weapons. But how long can we still wait, and how long shall we wait?!

Letzter Tag - Pete

Am letzten Freitag, den 11. Mai 2012, ging das erste Preparatory Committee zur Überprüfungskonferenz 2015 für den Nicht-Weiterverbreitungsvertrag für Atomwaffen (NPT) in Wien zu Ende. Die Delegierten der 186 Vertragsstaaten schiene mit dem ergebnis recht zufrieden zu sein, es gab viele anerkennende Worte für den Vorsitzenden des Treffens, Botschafter Woolcott aus Australien, und sogar einige Scherze. Herr Woolcott hatte seine „Zusammenfassung“ als Arbeitspapier (d.h., dass darüber keine Konsensentscheidung getroffen werden musste) am Donnerstag Abend präsentiert. Sein „factual summary“ wurde als akkurate Zusammenfassung der Diskussionen der zwei Wochen des PrepCom angesehen. Neben den „üblichen“ Argumenten über einen Mangel an Fortschritt bei der Abrüstung von einigen Staaten, das Beharren auf die Einhaltung der Nicht-Weiterverbreitungs-Verpflichtungen von anderen und die Bekräftigung des „unabänderlichen Rechts zur friedlichen Nutzung der Atomenergie“ von dritten, wurden auch einige wichtige Entwicklungen seit 2010 im Bericht hervor gehoben.

Zum einen gewinnen die katastrophalen humanitären Auswirkungen jeden Gebrauchs von Nuklearwaffen wieder mehr an Aufmerksamkeit – sie waren in den 1950er und 60er Jahren weit mehr im Bewusstsein, als die unmittelbare Bedrohung durch einen Atomkrieg wesentlich größer als heute war. Die Besorgnis darüber kam am klarsten in einem Aufruf des Internationalen Roten Kreuzes und des Roten Halbmonds im Jahr 2011 zum Ausdruck, die Nuklearwaffen „dringend und mit Bestimmtheit“ als illegal zu erklären. Ein weiteres wichtiges Thema in der Stellungnahme sind die Bedenken bezüglich der fortgesetzten Modernisierung der Nuklearwaffenarsenale und der Entwicklung neuer Typen von Nuklearwaffen und ihrer Trägersysteme, was als großes Hindernis für nukleare Abrüstung von vielen Staaten betrachtet wird. Die Konferenz über eine Zone frei von Massenvernichtungswaffen im Nahen und Mittleren Osten 2012, über die vom zuständigen Vorbereiter der Konferenz, Jaako Laajavo aus dem Gastgeberland Finnland, berichtet wurde, stellt einen weiteren Meilenstein für die Umsetzung der 2010 gefällten Entscheidungen zum NPT dar. Schließlich widerspiegelt der Bericht des Vorsitzenden auch den Mangel an Diskussionen über die Gefahren der Nuklearenergie, wie sie v.a. im Unfall in Fukushima 2011 deutlich wurden, der jedoch nicht zu kritischen Reflexionen über die „friedliche Nutzung“ der Kernenergie durch die meisten Staaten führte (mit wenigen Ausnahmen, die jedoch im Bericht nicht erwähnt wurden).

Natürlich kamen viele NGOs zu einer weitaus kritischeren Einschätzung der erreichten Ergebnisse. Der politische Wille, ernsthaft über die Abschaffung der Nuklearwaffen nachzudenken und zu reden, zeigte sich ein weiteres Mal nicht als glaubwürdig genug – insbesondere von Seiten der 5 offiziellen Atomwaffenstaaten. In dieser Hinsicht wird der erste Test schon sehr bald erfolgen, beim NATO-Gipfel Ende Mai in Chicago, wo wir sehen werden, ob es zu einer nennenswerten Reduktion der Rolle von Nuklearwaffen in der NATO-Strategie kommen wird, oder gar zu Gesprächen über wesentliche Abrüstung, oder ob die NATO wie üblich mit ihren Plänen der Modernisierung und mit dem Festhalten an Atomwaffen fortfährt. Eine weitere wichtige zeitliche Grenze für die Glaubwürdigkeit des NPT im besonderen und für den Weltfrieden überhaupt werden die Entwicklungen im Nahen Osten darstellen: Was werden die Ergebnisse der Diskussionen über das Atomprogramm des Iran sein – eine diplomatische Lösung oder Krieg? Und wird die Konferenz über eine Zone frei von Massenvernichtungswaffen im Nahen Osten heuer wirklich stattfinden, mit ALLEN Staaten der Region (also unter Einschluss Israels und des Iran, aber auch der Länder im Übergang bzw. mit einer momentan ungewissen Zukunft) als Teilnehmende?

Meine Hoffnung auf die Regierungen, diese beiden nächsten Ziele zu erreichen, sind nicht sehr fundiert, muss ich zugeben (obwohl sie ihre wichtige Rolle darin zu spielen haben), sie ruht mehr auf den Menschen, die in ihrer großen Mehrheit keine Atomwaffen wollen. Aber wie lange können wir noch warten, und wie lange sollen wir noch warten?!

Day 6

Due to work I had to do for university I was able to visit the PrepCom today only for 2,5 hours.
My plan was to attend the official conference after the diplomats lunch time.
In the meantime I decided to go to another NGO meeting. It was organized by the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/). Parliamentarians from different world regions (Europe, Middle East, East-Asia) presented their work and the efforts (contracts, etc.) they have made in the last years. The meeting was quite interesting but needs acutually no further explanation.

After leaving the meeting i realized that the discussion in the afternoon was unfortunatelly cancelled. I don't know the reasons, but a woman I asked answered me cynically that they probably don't have that much to say...
Nevertheless is took the some printed speeches with me, which were held in the forenoon and read them after university. The last Cluster the diplomats deal with is about the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I wasn't surprised that there is again consensus on the topic. Every state's souverignity  to use and develop nuclear energy for peaceful purpose must be left untouched. There was no printed document of a nuclear energy critical state like Austria or Norway, so I'm looking forward to hear their speeches tomorrow and hope that they will (as Austria did at the beginning of this years PrepCom) adress also the problems as well as the enviromental and humarian consequences of nuclear energy, because none of the speaches I have read today did this. Only the positive aspects were adressed and hence a narrow view on nuclear energy was provided (what is so ecofriendly about fuel rods for example..?). In general Cluster III discussions look more like lobbyistmeetings to me. Also it seems that none of the states have learnt from Fukushima. Every paper I have read is adressing the accident but only in terms of a need for higher security standards. None of the states question nuclear energy in general.
For this reason I'm  glad that I can attend tomorrow's last conferenceday from the beginning and expect, as I said before, to hear more critical statements as well.

On this account, stay tuned and visit our Blog again the next few days!

Day 5 - Vedo (7th May)

On May 7th I attended a meeting on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.
First of all i really have to say, that this NGO-meeting was one of the most interesting and best structured I have been to during this 10 days. It was organized by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and unified experts from different departments.
Two physicians opened the conference and presented impressing facts and slides on the outcomes of a fictional nuclear war.
The first war "took place" between India and Pakistan and the second one between the U.S and Russia. The speakers presented statistics and charts that showed the dramatic effects of such a war, which covered obviously firstly the figures of dead people. They were followed by indirect impacts. The soot, for example, which would soar up high into the atmosphere would absorb incoming sunlight and hence cause a dramatic decrease in amount of light reaching the surface. This would result in a sweeping decrease of the growing season and lead to a decline in food production and consequently to more than 40 Mio. new people becoming malnourished.
In a last step the technical damages of a possible nuclear war were covered. The electromagnetic pulse would destroy the electronics in the surrounding hospitals and due to that render them useless.

The panelists argued that human consequences of a nuclear war developed to a key issue of the NPT PrepCom 2012. The deterrence discussion (diplomats) is shifting towards a humanitarian consequences (public) one. This change in the discussion is quite obvious and important because it bears a big potential for public mobilization as well as a rising in the diplomats' awareness on the topic. One discussant stated that the nuclear weapon states themselves don't even know what they are possessing. Nuclear weapons and their consequences are something totally abstract most of the policymakers aren't even able to think about.

Civil Societies task is to remind them of the unbearable consequences day after day.

Testimonies

The testimonies of 3 hibakushas can be found here:


TANAKA Terumi: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-KCSFBx3n7aNXphNUgxOXZjaGs
KODAMA Michiko: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-KCSFBx3n7aU0RaMnM3cFZlRkE
YOSHIOKA Yukio: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-KCSFBx3n7aVEFfbWx6VWJ1ZjA

Please make time to read the papers.

Weekend - PETE

Active nonviolence is at the centre of IFOR’s message. But in the NPT PrepCom there is not much talk about nonviolence, neither in the official meeting, nor in the NGO side events – although there it seems to be a unspoken precondition.

I’d like to introduce a provocative thought here. In an interview one day before his assassination (1948) M.K.Gandhi was asked: “How would you meet the atom bomb with non-violence?” His answer was: “I will not go underground. I will not go into shelter. I will come out in the open and let the pilot see I have not a trace of ill will against him. The pilot will not see our faces from this great height, I know. But the longing in our hearts – that he will not come to harm – would reach up to him and his eyes would be opened. If those thousands who were done to death in Hiroshima, […} had died with that prayerful action – died openly with that prayer in their hearts – their sacrifice would not have gone in vain.”

This is not the place to give a thorough introduction in Gandhi’s thoughts, but I’d like to point to two things: Satyagraha (non-violence, force of goodness) develops its force in the people who try to live it – no matter what the results may be. It is the intention of those who practice it – to do no harm to others and have no ill will against them- that makes a change in the situation. The second effect is the one it has on the other, being convinced there are ways to reach the other and non-violence can touch their conscience.

Fortunately, we have not been in a situation since 1945 when the bomber planes (or missiles, or submarines) have been launched already to throw an atomic bomb on people. So, what can and should be done non-violently to prevent this from happening, how can people engage in banning the bomb and convince politicians and the military? Maybe the basic step would be to transcend the level of “politics” (in its form of Realpolitik, of security through deterrence…) and to reach out to “the others” on the level of humanity. This would assume great nonviolent commitment by the populations, by those who do not believe in the power of nuclear weapons, by US!

(I have (re)discovered Gandhi’s thoughts on the atomic bomb recently in Martin Arnold’s book: ‘Gütekraft. Gandhis Satyagraha’, 2011)

Wochenende – PETE

Gewaltfreiheit steht im Zentrum der Botschaft des Internationalen Versöhnungsbundes. Aber im NPT PrepCom wird nicht viel von Gewaltfreiheit gesprochen, weder im offiziellen Treffen noch in den Veranstaltungen der NGOs – obwohl sie dort stillschweigend vorausgesetzt scheint.

Ich möchte hier einen provokativen Gedanken einführen. In einem Interview einen Tag vor seiner Ermordung (1948) wurde M.K.Gandhi gefragt: „Wie würden Sie der Atombombe mit Gewaltfreiheit begegnen?“ Seine Antwort lautete: „Ich werde mich nicht unter die Erde verkriechen. Ich werde nicht in den Bunker gehen. Ich werde hinausgehen und dem Piloten zeigen, dass ich keine Spur von Übelwollen gegen ihn hege. Ich weiß, der Pilot wird aus der großen Höhe unsere Gesichter nicht sehen. Aber das Verlangen unserer Herzen, dass er nicht zu Schaden kommen soll, würde zu ihm hinauf reichen und ihm würden die Augen geöffnet. – Wenn jene Tausende, die in Hiroshima dem Tod ausgeliefert wurden […] in dieser andächtigen Aktion offen mit diesem Gebet im Herzen gestorben wären, wäre ihr Opfer nicht vergebens gewesen.“

Hier ist nicht der Platz für eine tiefgehende Einführung in Gandhis Gedanken, aber ich möchte zwei Punkte herausstreichen: Satyagraha (Gewaltfreiheit, Gütekraft) entwickelt ihre Kraft einerseits in den Menschen, die sie zu leben versuchen –unabhängig von den Ergebnissen. Es ist die Absicht derjenigen, die sie praktizieren – den anderen keinen Schaden zuzufügen und ihnen nicht mit Übelwollen zu begegnen – die eine Veränderung der Situation bewirken. Der zweite Effekt von Satyagraha ist die Wirkung auf den/die Andere, in der Überzeugung, dass der/die Andere erreichbar und im Gewissen ansprechbar ist.

Glücklicherweise waren wir seit 1945 nicht mehr in der Situation, dass die Bomber (oder Raketen oder U-Boote) bereits losgeschickt waren, um eine Atombombe auf Menschen zu werfen. Was können oder sollten wir also gewaltfrei tun, um das zu verhindern, wie können sich Leute für ein Verbot der Bombe engagieren und PolitikerInnen und Militärs überzeugen? Vielleicht wäre der grundlegende Schritt die Ebene der „Politik“ (in ihrer Form als „Realpolitik“, als Sicherheit durch Abschreckung…) zu transzendieren und „die Anderen“ auf der Ebene der Humanität anzusprechen. Das würde allerdings großen gewaltfreien Einsatz von den Bevölkerungen, von denen, die nicht an die Macht von Nuklearwaffen glauben, von UNS voraussetzen!

(Ich habe Gandhis Gedanken über die Atombombe neulich in Martin Arnolds Buch: ‚Gütekraft. Gandhis Satyagraha‘, 2011, (wieder) entdeckt)

Day 2 - Renata Nemrava

The conference which took place on 2nd May 2012 between 13.15 and 14.45 at the Conference Room M2 sought to present the main stance of three important powers, two of which posses nuclear weapons and one of which hosts them. These countries are France, United Kingdom (both possessing nuclear weapons) and Germany (hosting them).

The conference was highly interesting and well organised, with the Chair of the conference firstly introducing the German representative who spoke broadly (and, in comparison with the other two speakers, quite briefly) about the problem of being a host country to nuclear
weapons. The speaker indicated his disbelief that Germany will become a nuclear-free countryany time soon and concentrated more on the history of the Cold War problematic which in a way provided the grounds for the claim that nuclear weapons are a necessity. Disarmament needsconsensus, claimed the speaker, and this is clearly what is missing, whilst NATO states clearly that itwill remain a nuclear alliance as long as it sees it necessary to do so, which isquite alarming.

The French representative, a former French Foreign Minister, spoke at length about his view on the problematic, referring to the proposals contained in his book. The opinion of the newgeneration is very different to the old generation since it no longer considers it prestigious to have nuclear weapons, but rather that precisely a nuclear-free world is a prestigious one. Nuclear world is not only pricey, but chaotic and dangerous too, whilst the irony exists in the fact that the world is experiencing severe cuts to social expenditure, yet spendingon the nuclear weapons is on the increase. In order to change the mentality and attitudes there is a collective responsibility on the heads of states of Europe to finally make the ColdWar history and pave the way for a nuclear-free new world. 

The representative put forward 11 recommendations, all of which can be found in the
above-mentioned book, which are, inter alia, 

1) France must admit that nuclear weapons have lost their original purpose for which they were built: security of France must not rest on its possession; 

2) NATO was never under any threat which justified possession of nuclear weapons whilst France should stop claiming its right under Article 51 of the UN Charter to self-defence and 

thus justifying its right to possess nuclear weapons; 

3) Explicit acknowledgement of the possibility to have a nuclear-free world is needed and 

the example given by the UK should be followed in this respect; 

4) Enhancing transparency, again following UK`s suit; 

5) Encouraging immediate negotiations for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, and 

6) Exerting pressure on Pakistan which opposed opening of current negotiations. These are some of the proposals by the French representative who encouragingly made several referrals to the UK and its positive outlook and steps taken on the matter. 

 

The UK representative, who immediately indicated her approval of the speech by the French
representative, spoke about the recent UK history in terms of nuclear weapons
question and how this was approached by the most recent UK governments. In, for
instance, 2006 Tony Blair stated the need to renew Trident, the main UK nuclear producer based in Scotland, but limiting that its need for nuclear weapons was essentially for submarines. Later Conservatives agreed with this stance though in 2007 Scotland called for Trident not to be renewed which was a successful petition with only 16% (all Tories) voting against. In May 2010 there was, as we know, a hung Parliament, and the government constituted a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Lib. Dem`s initial party manifesto was skepticism about Trident`s renewal which was a fact making many people vote for
them and naturally expecting this to become reality once the Lib. Dem`s were office. 
This expectation was, however, only fulfilled insignificantly. 

The UK does not like saying that it possesses nuclear weapons, the speaker claimed, but
rather that it has a nuclear deterrent. The representative agreed with the French speaker that we live in an entirely changed world and that the need to possess nuclear weapons
no longer exist. Its possession actually provokes as opposed to provides
deterrence. Nuclear weapons are proliferation drivers; they are essentially
anti-humanitarian since the consequences of just one bomb upon the people, animals
and on the nature, including the existence of horror, are inexcusable. Any such
use would constitute a crime against humanity, and a war crime. It is illegal
to do it and illegal to possess it. The UK must redefine its role in the
new world and act now.

Day 4 - Vedo

Unfortunately the meeting with the hibakushas in our office has been cancelled. This is not such a big problem for me because I have heard their stories yesterday. I managed to get copies of their testimonies which I will scan and upload for you as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, I decided not to sit at home and took the subway to the UN Headquarters once more.

Todays official assembly dealt mostly with security assurances. All states that took the floor were in agreement about the need of further strengthening security assurances and argued in favor of negative security assurances (a good introduction to the topic is given in following PDF-File - http://www.gsinstitute.org/dpe/docs/FactSheetNSAs.pdf).

At this moment I want to point out the U.S. Statement.

"Mr. Chairman, as noted in the 2010 NPR, the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security and U.S. military strategy has beed reduced significantly in recent decades, but further steps can and should be take." (Statement by Ambassador Laura Kennedy, 4th May 2012)

A statement contradictory to the raise of almost 6 Billion $ in spending on nuclear weapons from 2010 to 2011.

(Picture taken at the Mayors of Peace exhibition
data from Global Zero)

Another statement, following the quoted one, says

"The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners." (Statement by Ambassador Laura Kennedy, 4th May 2012)

This comment is on the one hand odd (they will exist as long as nuclear weapons exist..?) and shows on the other hand the dilemma in which the Nuclear-Weapon-States are stuck. "I won't get rid of my bombs as long as you don't!" seems to be the guiding line of thought, which blocks further considerable steps in the direction of a complete ban of nuclear weapons.

Here is some further data on the concrete situation and the future steps the Nuclear-Weapon-States are going to take

(Picture taken at the Mayors of Peace exhibition 

data from Sipri Yearbook 2011)

(Picture taken at the Mayors of Peace exhibition
data from Global Zero)

Amano Mari, Kawasaki Akira,
Leeper Steve, Matsui Kazumi,
Taue Tomihisa (f.r.t.l)

After the official part I attended a Mayors for Peace meeting which covered Hiroshima's, Nagasaki's and in general Japan's special role in the worldwide abolition process. Once more the point of holding the next Review Conference in Hiroshima was stressed and the mayors of the two Japanese cities asked for public support relating the appeal.

The ambassador of Japan mentioned, hardly surprising, the efforts which were reached in Japan and international with Japanese support (UN Resolution on Nuclear Disarmament, NPDI, Disarmament and Nonproliferation Education in Japan), but had as well to face criticism from Akira Kawasaki, the Executive Committee Member of Japanese NGO "Peace Boat", especially over the peaceful use of nuclear energy. He pointed out the public opposition to that kind of energy and the recently founding of "Mayors for a Nuclear Power Free Japan". A document with a good and narrow description of their themes, goals and principals can be found on their website (http://npfree.jp/download/NpfreeMayors.pdf). Even though there were some content-related differences we all have the same goal and the NGOs that took the floor assured their further backing in the process of banning all nuclear weapons.

from MAJA

NPT PrepCom- A Very Personal Reflection

As I am getting more familiar with various aspects of the NPT, one thing is becoming clear to me: there is a big gap between the governments (and government representatives) and the people. One could listen to the diplomats talk for hours about their stances on nuclear weapons and maybe think rationally about reasons for and against them, but it takes only one look at the rags that hibakushas (the survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) are showing as a part of their exhibition “Under the Mushroom Cloud” to realize that nuclear weapons, and furthermore, nuclear energy should be banned once and for all. The most powerful statement for me was not the statement of lukewarm support for the nuclear disarmament and promise of financial support stated by the U.S. representative; it was none of the more defined statements of the non-nuclear weapon states, and it was not even the statement of the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran saying that Iran supports a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. No. The most powerful statement for me was the message of Mikiso Iwasa, one of the hibakushas, during the “NGO Day”. Iwasa talked about his personal experience, as a survivor of the atomic bomb. Seeing the direct and personal effects of the nuclear bomb was the force that moved me the most, that made me propagate the message of the world free of nuclear weapons to whomever I saw that day. It was a very powerful statement, one that made the listeners relate it to their own life and the one that made me think about how no one is safe from the effects of the atomic bombs.

NGOs in general presented more determined attitudes to achieve the world without nuclear weapons, which is understandable because for them the stakes are lower; they have a lot less responsibility to represent a certain population than the states representatives, who actually stopped being the people’s representatives a long time ago. However, this is exactly what this whole thing is about. Responsibility. Whether we have the responsibility to perpetuate the myth of nuclear deterrence to justify the whole arsenal of nukes in our home country or to tell the world our own personal story about nuclear weapons, we all are connected to the issue of nuclear power. We have the responsibility to get involved. Responsibility not only to the others, but also to ourselves. Hearing the hibakushas stories about long-term effects of radiation made me think about all the possible effects that might have been concealed from us, the common people. Such high rates of cancer everywhere in the world?  So many new conditions that have been attributed to factors other than nuclear weapons? And what about the money spent on the nuclear weapons? Couldn’t it be used for other purposes? Couldn’t it feed the starving children, improve everyone’s life conditions? Build the world based on trust instead of contributing to the state of general anxiety?

The fact that so much nuclear power is being piled up in the name of nuclear deterrence shows that we live in the world full of distrust, in the world that is still a lot more prepared for wars than for peace. We are looking at the wars of the past, projecting the fears and distrust onto the future. Instead of preparing to create, we are preparing to destroy. We cannot believe that humankind is capable of life with no war. And right now it doesn’t seem like it is. Not with so much nuclear weapons lying around.

It’s the time that we, the common people, take the responsibility for ourselves and each other and demand loudly what we want. It’s the time that we took our own destiny in our own hands. Because, remember, no government will do it for you. Although our societies can be called democratic, under careful examination most of them would fail to justify using that name. So, turn to the civil society sector and protect your rights! Because, after all, all of us have the right not to be the next hibakusha.

Vedo - Day 3

Our Information Table

My third day was different than the two before. I did not go to the UN-Headquarters but was instead in the University of Vienna to be in charge of an information table with my other colleagues.

Our task was to inform the bypassing people on the NPT PrepCom 2012 and on Nuclear Weapons in general. Almost all of the interested people, who took a look at our table (and drank coffee or tea) didn't even know that such a big and important conference is going on at the moment.

We've had a lot of interesting discussions on the topic and a bunch of people that were willing to sign an appeal for a total ban of nuclear weapons, which has beed launched by Gensuikyo. The japanese NGO which was on the ground too facilitated expertise and personal experience to the students passing by as well as to our group.

In the long run one can say that the information table was visited by a lot of people and therefore can be seen as a success in informing the mostly uninformed about the issue. Furthermore, I have heard a lot of new facts and stories from the Japanese delegation and hence learned much myself.

Testimony of the hibakusha

At 4 p.m. I had to attend a lecture in university, which lasted until 5.30 p.m. So I got an hour to brace myself for the testimony of the hibakushas which took place from 6.30 p.m.

Even though I felt really energetic when entering the room, the first few minutes of the movie shown at the beginning of the testimony just blew away all my vigour.

The movie presented stock footage of the first few days after the bomb was dropped and showed the unthinkable that happened in 1945. Humans can't  even in their worst nightmares imagine the whole ferocity shown. Dead babies carried by their delirious mothers, children with half of their mouth blown away, teenagers with a large part of their body burnt, corpses on the street, not looking like humans but like big bricks of charcoal shocked all those present.

The following testimonies of four survivors were touching and conveyed a weird feeling of suffering to me. They spoke about the day the bombing took place, their subsequent search for their family members, the loss of their loved ones and their way back to society. I won't forget this 2,5 hours in my lifetime. Surely I was not the only one leaving the room with a big lump in my throat. But once the lump is gone I will spread their word, just as the hibakushas desire it.

This disaster must never be forgotten! The pictures and stories, even though they are cruel, are more than necessary. They were reality. Reality a happy and safe person could't even imagine. 

Let us stand together as one and hope they will never be reality again!

Day 2 – PETE

Today was „NGO day“ at the PrepCom, and today „we“ (NGOs) have shown and told „them“ (the states, especially those with nuclear weapons) how it would work: the simple, the obvious and the reasonable.

In the morning it was the youth delegation with their song at the vigil in front of the entrance to the Vienna International Center: “BAN THE BOMB!” In the afternoon then the older people with their statement which had been drafted by more than 100 delegates of different international NGOs over months, coordinated by Reaching Critical Will (the statement can be read under www.reachingcriticalwill.org):

“As representatives of civil society, we are becoming increasingly frustrated with this ritual of NPT Review Conferences and PrepComs. We can almost predict what will happen. The nuclear-weapon states will characterize their activities as progress on disarmament rather than as the retention of large, modernized arsenals. Many states – nuclear- and non-nuclear alike – will point the finger at Iran and the DPRK rather than stigmatize the weapons themselves in anyone’s hands. Proliferation and alleged proliferation will be discussed in isolation as an obstacle to disarmament rather than as a consequence of the failure to comply fully with Article 6. Some states will change the subject entirely to the global promotion of a dangerous and obsolete technology for producing electricity, as though the NPT were first and foremost the midwife of the nuclear power industry’s dreams of global expansion.”

Mayor Taue of Nagasaki, Mikiso Iwasa, survivor of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the speakers of ICAN, Pax Christi International, the Parliamentarians for Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and others were clear: All nuclear weapons are to be banned and abolished, following a Roadmap which should be decided in 2015 the latest! The International Fellowship of Reconciliation was involved in the draft of the statement through its representative at the UN in New York, John Kim.

And in the end, the youth again, represented by Mirko Montuori (Italy) and Ayesha Irshad (Pakistan/Austria): “We are here, representing the youth movement for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, urging you to comply with your commitments to your citizens and to start immediate negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention.”

Tag 2 – PETE

Heute war “NGO-Tag” beim PrepCom, und heute haben “wir” (NGOs) es „ihnen“ (den Staaten, v.a. denen mit Atomwaffen) gezeigt bzw. gesagt, wie es ginge: das Einfache, das Offensichtliche und Vernünftige.

Am Morgen gleich die Jugenddelegation mit ihrem Song bei der Mahnwache vor dem Eingang zum Vienna International Center: „BAN THE BOMB!“ Am Nachmittag dann die Älteren in ihrem Statement, an dem über Monate über 100 Delegierte von vielen internationalen Nichtregierungsorganisationen unter Koordination von Reaching Critical Will zusammen gearbeitet haben (das Statement ist unter www.reachingcriticalwill.org nachzulesen):

„Als VertreterInnen der Zivilgesellschaft sind wir zunehmend frustriert mit dem Ritual von NPT Review Konferenzen und PrepComs. Wir können fast vorhersagen, was geschehen wird. Die Atomwaffenstaaten werden ihre Aktivitäten als Fortschritt in Richtung Abrüstung charakterisieren statt als die Aufrechterhaltung von großen, modernisierten Arsenalen. Viele Staaten – nukleare wie nicht-nukleare – werden mit dem Finger auf Iran und Nordkorea zeigen statt die Waffen selbst in jedes Staates Hand zu stigmatisieren. Verbreitung und angebliche Verbreitung werden isoliert als Hindernis für Abrüstung diskutiert werden statt als Folge des Versagens, den Artikel 6 voll zu erfüllen. Einige Staaten werden komplett das Thema wechseln zu einer globalen Promotion einer gefährlichen und obsoleten Technologie zur Gewinnung von Elektrizität, als ob der NPT zu allererst die Hebamme der Träume der Atomenergieindustrie für eine weltweite Expansion wäre.“

Bürgermeister Taue von Nagasaki, Mikiso Iwasa, Überlebender des Atombombenabwurfs in Hiroshima, die SprecherInnen von ICAN, Pax Christi International, den ParlamentarierInnen für nukleare Nonproliferation und Abrüstung u.a. waren eindeutig: Alle Atomwaffen gehören verboten und abgeschafft, und das nach einem Zeitplan, der spätestens 2015 beschlossen werden müsste! Auch der Internationale Versöhnungsbund war in Person von John Kim, Vertreter von IFOR bei den Vereinten Nationen in New York, an der Erarbeitung des NGO-Statements beteiligt.

Und dann nochmals die Jugend, deren Beitrag von Mirko Montuori (Italien) und Ayesha Irshad (Pakistan/Österreich) vorgetragen wurde: „Wir sind hier und vertreten die Jugendbewegung für nukleare Nicht-Weiterverbreitung und Abrüstung, und wir bitten Sie dringend, ihren Verpflichtungen gegenüber ihren BürgerInnen nachzukommen und sofort Verhandlungen für eine Atomwaffenkonvention aufzunehmen.“

Vedo - Day 2

Update: After the successful rally we entered the building and listened to further nation's statements. In my opinion, today's most interesting one was the one of Iran. Iran's ambassador criticized mostly the existing contradiction between words and action. Nuclear-Weapon-States are keeping their weapons  (19.500 still exist) and further more modernize them. He also stressed the point of nuclear sharing among nuclear-weapon states or with non-nuclear weapon states under military alliances (as an example he mentioned the agreement signed by France and the UK). Considering Iran's nuclear program he passed criticism on the fact that non-nuclear weapon states in developing areas, have been under heavier, and thereby discriminatory, control by developed member states.
He pointed out, that the Islamic Republic of Iran has never been and never will be after nuclear weapons. Hence the international fold can count on Iranian help, first of all, to establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East and in long term to ban all nuclear weapons. For this purpose he insisted on the making of a time table. A wish which was repeated by NGOs representatives as well.

In the afternoon we met the ambassadors of Norway and talked with them about their engagement in the NPT. Gladly they really took time for our questions. Because of this a fruitful discussion arose and everyone's questions go answered. The representatives encouraged us to keep up our work and to raise public's awareness for nuclear weapons.

My day ended with the NGO Statements on the NPT. The first spokesperson was the mayor of Nagasaki who stressed out 3 points of consideration

• The inhumanity of atomic weapons
• The responsibility for future generations
• The need of cooperation among the UN, nuclear & non-nuclear powers, NGOs and the civil society

Tomihisa Taue (left), Mayor of Nagasaki

He made the audience sit up and take notice when he presented his idea of holding the 2015 Review Conference in Hiroshima and called for the support of the persons in charge. In his (and also my) opinion this step would be symbolically important. Let's hope they will follow his appeal.

His speak was followed by a hibakusha (surviving victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) who told the audience his incredible story. I was deeply touched by his words and look excitedly forward to hear more on friday when hibakushas will be visiting our bureau! Hardly surprising that he called upon the ambassadors to implement the action plan and also to promote sustainable energy instead of nuclear one.

Ayesha Irshad & Mirko Montuori

A special moment for me and our delegation was the youth delegation's statement, which appealed to the chairman to start negotiating a nuclear weapons convention that would ban them for now and forever so that this as well as future generations do not have to fear a nuclear disaster.

In general, one thing was clear for all NGO-representatives: There's still a stark contradiction between the peoples' opinion on nuclear weapons and the politic's outcome on the topic. 

We demand abolition!

------

My today's morning started with a little less conversation and a little more action on the street. The youth delegation met at 8 a.m. in front of the UN-Building to rally against nuclear weapons.
I managed to take a few pictures and to make a video. Enjoy!