Key note address by Minister Ronald Sturm Foreign Ministry, Austria 27 August 2014

Transcription

1 IPPNW World Congress From a Nuclear Test Ban to a Nuclear Weapon Free World: Disarmament, Peace and Global Health in the 21 st Century Astana, Kazakhstan Key note address by Minister Ronald Sturm Foreign Ministry, Austria 27 August 2014 Honorable Minister, Excellencies, Distinguished participants, Allow me to start by thanking the organisers of this World Congress as well as the hosts for this conference for their excellent work in preparation of this event as well as for inviting me to Astana. It is a great honour and distinct pleasure for me to develop a few thoughts in this key note speech to this distinguished audience. [On a personal note, I would also like to add that I take great pleasure in addressing representatives of the medical profession. In my youth, I had dreamt of becoming a medical doctor myself. In those days, however, I felt too imperfect to be able to become a responsible member of this profession.] Ladies and Gentlemen, I have been asked by the organisers of this conference to address the emerging humanitarian basis for ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Naturally, I will do so from the Austrian perspective, but let me provide you with the international context first: Since the end of the cold war in the late 1980 ies and early 90 ies, the immediate nuclear stand-off has been considered as overcome and the danger of nuclear weapons has been seemingly reduced. Therefore, the interest and attention and awareness of the wider public have waned. Interest had almost disappeared until very recently. At least in Europe and in other industrialised countries and regions, nuclear weapons are no longer seen as an immediate danger, but as quite a distant issue. The last occasion when a broader level of interest and focus on nuclear weapon issues was generated was in 1996 when France last tested nuclear weapons in the Pacific and in 1998 when India and Pakistan conducted their tests and openly became nuclear weapon possessor states. Henceforth, rather than looking at the dangers of existing nuclear weapon arsenals, the attention has shifted to the question of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Over the years, we have all followed media reports about countries like Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran and their perceived or real nuclear weapon programmes. The world has also put emphasis on non-state actors and on the potential risk of nuclear terrorism. On the other hand, discussions about fulfilling the disarmament obligations by states possessing nuclear weapons takes place in rather obscure expert forums such as the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the UN Disarmament Commission in New York, and the Review Conferences of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT. These Conferences take place largely without attention paid by the wider public. In general, the nuclear disarmament issue has been framed as: Yes, we are moving in the right direction, but it takes time and it is difficult. It may be true that nuclear disarmament takes time and is difficult, but the world is certainly not moving in the right direction.

2 Despite the reduction in overall numbers of nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, mainly thanks to nuclear arms reductions of the US and Russia, no credible shift in policy or strategy can be seen that would demonstrate a move away from nuclear weapons. There does not seem to be a real intention or readiness to disarm. Instead, we observe a continued alert status for nuclear weapons. We see massive investment in the modernisation and sometimes build-up of nuclear weapon systems. We hear clear statements that states will continue to rely on nuclear deterrence. Hence we conclude that nuclear weapon states and nuclear possessor states will not give up nuclear weapons on their own. As a result, there is a growing frustration among non-nuclear weapon states. Multilateral structures like the Conference on Disarmament have been dysfunctional. Despite the clear need and mandate, there has not been any disarmament treaty negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament since the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). We believe that all states and all people have a right to a world without nuclear weapons. The obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament and to achieve a world free from nuclear weapons is indisputable. The non-nuclear weapons states are now trying to take more control of the issue. This is clearly compatible with the NPT and the results of its Review Conferences, in particular with Action 1 of 2010 Conclusions and recommendations for followon actions. The implementation of Article VI of the NPT dealing with nuclear disarmament is not just an issue for nuclear weapon states all states must pursue policies compatible with achieving a world without nuclear weapons. This is exactly where efforts to change the context are required. This is exactly where the discourse on the humanitarian impact has a decisive role. It provides a new dynamic and a different way to think and talk about nuclear weapons. The objective is to reframe the issue: States without nuclear weapons and civil society are seeking to take more ownership of the debate by focusing on the potential humanitarian consequences and risks associated with nuclear weapons. Essentially, we are asking the question: How can nuclear weapons be an issue of national security for a few states when the consequences are so clearly global and devastating? Put under a different perspective: How can an interdependent, global village exist in the 21 st Century if parts of it insist on retaining the capacity to destroy it with nuclear weapons for their own, limited national security needs? The devastating humanitarian impact of nuclear war is the driving force behind all nuclear disarmament efforts. It motivated the conclusion of the NPT and is reflected in the first pre-ambular paragraph of this Treaty. Since 2010, when the Review Conference of the NPT expressed deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, many national and international activities have focused on this question. Joint humanitarian statements have been made in the context of the NPT and the First Committee of the UN General Assembly. Initiatives have been launched by non-nuclear weapon states to put focus again on nuclear disarmament. Kazakhstan, the host of this World Congress, belongs to those countries that have repeatedly come up with their own proposals and initiatives. Having given up nuclear weapons, and having had the experience of nuclear weapon tests on its own territory, Kazakhstan is uniquely positioned and credible in the nuclear disarmament debate. The UN has organized High Level Meetings on taking forward the nuclear disarmament agenda. More such meetings are due to come. At expert level, openended informal discussions were conducted by a special UN Working Group in Geneva in 2013 that resulted in substantive proposals on how to take forward negotiations. Among the humanitarian initiatives, the conferences in Oslo, Norway, in March 2013, and in Nayarit, Mexico, in February 2014, have been the most prominent. Austria will follow up with the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons on 8 and 9 December These humanitarian conferences provide an outlet for the latest research looking at the consequences of nuclear weapons explosions on the environment, climate, health, social order, human development and global economy through the humanitarian looking glass. This research makes a compelling case

3 that these consequences are even greater than we previously understood. Even a so-called limited nuclear exchange using a small fraction of today s nuclear arsenals would result in a humanitarian emergency of enormous scale. The images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would pale by comparison. Ladies and Gentlemen, The Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons will take forward the work done in Oslo and Nayarit. All states are invited, all the relevant international organisations, think tanks and civil society organisations are welcome. Some basic information is already on-line, more detail about the registration formalities will follow soon. Over one and a half days, the conference will address three broad areas by way of expert panel discussions that will be opened for questions and comments from the floor: 1) The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. 2) The risk that nuclear weapons may actually be used. 3) The existing international law relevant to nuclear weapons and their use. Let me outline briefly how we want to fill these three broad topics: 1) The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have already received wide room for information and discussion in Oslo and Nayarit. We intend to recapitulate the findings presented there for the benefit of all those conference participants that have not followed the previous two conferences. Building on the findings discussed at these conferences, this session will further address the wide range of short and long-term consequences of nuclear weapons explosions, inter alia in the areas of health, environment, socio-economic development, climate, food security, and infrastructure, and the potential interaction of these consequences. A focus will be put on the impact of nuclear test explosions on people and their communities. Therefore, this World Congress taking place in Kazakhstan with its Semipalatinsk test site inherited from the Soviet nuclear weapons programme is also very relevant for Vienna. 2) When we address the issue of risk at the Vienna Conference, we will be building on the discussion initiated at the Nayarit Conference. This segment will further address the range of human and technical factors that could lead to the explosion of (a) nuclear weapon(s). These could be human error, negligence, miscalculation, technical faults, risk calculation, vulnerability and cyber security. New information is becoming available about risks. These risks are real. They are more serious and more complex than previously known and they can never be eliminated completely. In addition, we will address possible scenarios of nuclear weapons use, including explosions of radiological devices. Response plans and capabilities of States and the international system as well as the response challenges will be discussed. What the focus on humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons makes clear is that there cannot be a winner in a scenario of nuclear weapon use. No national or international capacity exists to deal with such consequences in any adequate manner. Secondly, the impact would be suffered by all, even in parts of the world far removed from the conflict. Consequently, as aptly explained in the words of Ronald Reagan, A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. Humankind has been very lucky on several occasions in the past; reason should demand urgent action to move beyond nuclear weapons. 3) Lastly, we want to cast a bird s eye view at international law and the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This segment will provide an overview on the norms of existing international law as it pertains to the environmental and health consequences of nuclear weapon explosions and international humanitarian law as well as the humanitarian dimension in existing disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation instruments

4 Ladies and Gentlemen, The discourse on the humanitarian consequences that are even more severe than we were previously led to believe, the discourse on the risks that are more considerable, and the perspective of international law, all this has the potential to change the context of the debate about NWs. It has the potential to turn the debate on nuclear weapons from something that is widely seen as a symbolism, or even a fetish, of power projection and technical sophistication into a debate about nuclear weapons as - a liability, - a weapon whose promise of national security for the possessor states is in fact generating collective insecurity, - a weapon whose possession and continued reliance on is thus an irresponsible gamble with the security of all humankind, - something that constitutes an unacceptable risk and that therefore, responsible actors, nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states alike, simply have a responsibility to address with urgency. This discourse is gaining momentum among states and in civil society. Naturally, nuclear weapon states have resisted it so far, as it changes the parameters of the discourse. It makes the discourse harder to control and this is difficult to accept for them. Nevertheless the arguments against nuclear weapons, the arguments related to the humanitarian consequences, the risks, the legal issues involved, are difficult to counter. This angle ultimately leads us to a set of profound moral questions surrounding nuclear weapons. The more we know and talk about the humanitarian consequences of these weapons and the risks associated with them, the more we will reach the understanding that it means taking an irresponsible risk and a gamble that we should not take. Thus we can generate momentum and the sense of urgency and political will needed to make real and directional progress on this intractable issue. These arguments have the potential to change the equation and calculation about nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence. Ultimately this discourse is about moving the behaviour of those states that still believe they need nuclear weapons for their own security and for their status as an important country. A view of security that is still based on the threat of mutually assured destruction is an anachronism in the 21 st century. Today, all aspects of life are dominated by globalization and an understanding of our interconnectedness. In this world, the security of some cannot be at the expense of the security of others. There is an urgent need to introduce this understanding into the archaic nuclear weapons discourse. Distinguished participants, The belief in nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence is still strongly ingrained in the states possessing or aspiring nuclear weapons. This need not be the case. Civil society organisations like the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War as well as non-nuclear weapons states have already made their voices heard and should continue to do so. The growing momentum and focus on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons has a positive effect on international discussions about nuclear weapons. The desire to avert such devastating consequences unites us all. Austria as host of the Vienna Conference looks forward to the active participation of all stakeholders who want to see progress in our shared objective of nuclear disarmament and a world without nuclear weapons. We need to act together to educate and to save future generations from the risk of devastation through nuclear weapons and to promote peace and a sustainable future. Honorable Minister, Excellencies, Distinguished participants

5 This distinguished audience knows that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of their use - deliberately or inadvertently - remains real. Such a scenario, more than any other human action, has the potential of escalation and consequently of ending life on this planet as we know it. Any use of nuclear weapons could cause gravest humanitarian emergencies and have catastrophic global consequences on the environment, climate, health, food security, social order, human development and the economy. There would not be a winner in such a scenario. Everybody loses. Reason demands urgent action to end the age of nuclear weapons, which UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has aptly called a historical nightmare. We have the collective responsibility for ourselves and for future generations to do our utmost that they will never be used again. Therefore, I applaud the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War as well as Kazakhstan for the initiatives and steadfast resolve to pave the way for a world without nuclear weapons, for a world in peace and with a sustainable future. Thank you for your attention.