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.