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.