Ottawa Seminar
Tarja Cronberg
Middle Powers Initiative
30 November 2015
Dear Nuclear AbolitionColleagues and Friends
The world of nuclear weapons has changed. The taboo is broken. For the first time in many decades we hear the threat that nuclear weapons actually might be used. Russia has during the past year introduced a language of nuclear threats both in words as well as in exercises. Russia has even proposed to use nuclear weapons“to escalate in order to de- escalate” in the Ukraine crisis meaning that local use of nuclear weapons will coerce the opponent to surrender. Exactly the opposite is taking place. Experts and politicians are calling on NATO to review its nuclear strategy. Not in order to disarm but in order to make its nuclear presence in Europe more forcefully known and in order to respond to the Russian sable-rattling by doing the same. This is a dangerous path.
The return of nuclear threats is, luckily, not the only change. We havea new framework to understand nuclear weapons. No longer are they only a question of numbers and locations. They also have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. While the nuclear weapon states maintain that this is what makes them so effective- this is exactly the core of deterrence thinking- this change in rhetoric has brought a new focus in our minds. We listen to those who have been targeted by nuclear weapons testing in Semipalatinsk, in the Marshall Islands and in Utah. We study the accidents that could have been fatal in North Caroline and in Greenland. Instead of counting the number of weapons, we count the number of beds for treating radiation casualties in case of a nuclear explosion, accidental or intended. In the whole Hamburg area there are five beds. No country has contingency plans even for a nuclear accident, not to mention intended use.
The Humanitarian pledge, introduced by Austria, and in November also approved as a UN resolution, has been signed already by over hundred states. It is an important tool in our fight for a nuclear weapon-free world. It is a tool that raises awareness among both politicians and publics. It is a tool the nuclear weapon states detest. The nuclear weapon states were totally absent in the two first global, humanitarian consequence conferences, in Norwayand in Mexico. In the third conference, in Austria, the US and the UK were present. France did not even bother to answer the invitation by the Austrian State.
But we have a way to go before we live in a nuclear weapon- free world. The Humanitarian pledge, which calls for starting negotiations to ban nuclear weapons, has not been signed by your country, not by mine. The non-signatory countries think that it is not worth while unless the nuclear weapon states agree. We will have to wait a long time before the P5 propose the abolition of their nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons today mean not only deterrence but also power and prestige. It is not a coincidence that the five NPT nuclear weapon states are also those who have the veto-power in the Security Council. No state will voluntarily denounce it power base.
But there is no reason to surrender before hand. The nuclear weapon states have to be pressured. Their publics and politicians need to be convinced that these weapons are not self evident and unavoidable. Citizens in the nuclear weapon states will be safer and better off without these weapons.
I see the ban on nuclear weapons, to be signed in the first instance by non- nuclear weapon states as a good way to pressure the nuclear weapon states. They have to start respecting their own commitment to the NPT treaty' s article VI. Already a discussion about a ban has been a provocation. The P5 have had to decide not to participate in the conferences, they have had to agree, that they will not abide by any results of these deliberations. It has not been enough to ignore the movement. The fact that they have had to oppose it, is a sign of power of the movement.
The ban will, this is the strategy, lead to a nuclear weapons convention. It is about time. We have a chemical weapons convention and a biological weapons convention. In both of these, the states that sign it abide by the same rules. The NPT treaty is an absurd and unjust treaty allowing some signatories to have nuclear weapons and refusing them for others. Is the any rational argument why five countries, the US, Russia, China. France and the UK are given the right to potentially destroy the world, while 190 countries have to agree that they will not develop and produce these weapons. Same rules must apply to everybody. The divide in the NPT that countries that before 1967 had exploded a nuclear device have the right to nuclear weapons is totally absurd in the world of today. A fact confirmed by the four countries (India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) who have stayed outside the treaty and have these means of mass destruction.
Same rules must apply to everybody. This is, for me, the forceful and simple message if the Nuclear Weapons Convention. All signatories abide by the same rules, all are subject to the same verification procedures.
But how to get there? There is only one way, the political will. The political will has to be created by the peace movements and by the NGO´s like the Middle Powers Initiative together with states that support us. On the one hand we have to wake up the citizens. I have, as the chair of the Finnish Peace Union found the low level of interest in the weapons that threaten our very existence amazing. The NPT treaty and the fact that five states are legally allowed to have these weapons are largely unknown. In our encounters with people, we have to ask: Who has the right to nuclear weapons? And why?
Political will has to be created on the state level as well. The change that has taken place in your country is a very positive sign and I look forward to seeing Canada as one of the leading countries in our efforts to achieve a nuclear weapon-free World. In Europe countries like Austria and Ireland are the leaders, in Asia Kazakhstan. The mission of the MPI is to create networks of states for nuclear abolition. The MPI´s view is that time has come to create a process expressly devoted to the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free world.
The first steps for such a process exists. Although the Conference of Disarmament has been dysfunctional for almost 20 years, the UN has institutionalized another route, the open-ended working groups. The second one was approved by the General Assemblythis fall and will be active already in 2016. This will be a good opportunity to take the ideas of the first OEWG further and to create continuity in the UN process. Of special interest will be the position of the nuclear weapon states. None of the Five were present at the first OEWG and these states even felt the need to state that they would not be bound by any of the results. We hope the situation will be different this time.
In the process the MPI has worked with what we call Framework Forums. These are meetings doing preparatory work before the NPT Review Conferences and the OEWG´s to promote state cooperation and to design strategy and concrete steps for how to proceed. It is our hope that Canada would sponsor such a Framework Forum in the spring of 2016 as a preparation for the discussions in the OEWG in the fall. It is my intention to, while in Canada, carry out consultations on this.
In the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation there are enough plans for what could be done. The NPT 2000 Review Conference approved of 13 steps on how to proceed. The 2010 conference approved an action plan of more than 60 necessary actions. The progress in these has been evaluated and the results are depressing. The Test Ban treaty has not been ratified, the negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut off Treaty have not taken off. The role of nuclear weapons in security strategies has not been reduced. On the contrary, we stand in a situation were the current crises may lead to an increase of their role. The Russian sable-rattling is not a good sign and the response from NATO seems to be to increase the role of nuclear weapons in NATO defence posture. This is where your movement can make a difference, and I hope that during the coming discussions you will be able to design your strategy on how to counter this perspective as a NATO country.
In spite of all this lack of progress in “steps” and “actions” I would like to end with an extremely positive note: The Iran deal. After 12 years of negotiations diplomacy won over military options. While the deal may not be perfect, it closes Iran´s pathways to nuclear weapons for 15 to 20 years, by which time we should have advanced towards a nuclear weapons-free world and Iran would be able to sign the convention denouncing nuclear weapons. Optimistic? I hope not.
The Iran deal, not only bans Iran from nuclear weapons, teaches as a number of things of the problems of managing non-proliferation. First of all that it is extremely difficult to make the distinction between a peaceful and a military nuclear program as the technology and the know-how is the same. Iran has all the time claimed its program is peaceful and the West has all the time suspected that the program is military. It is extremely difficult to come up with technical criteria, as nuclear weapons as essentially about politics and power. In the future we will encounter many more “Irans” as nuclear technology becomes easier and easier to access. Imagine a time when there may be ten to twenty countries developing peaceful nuclear programs but which other states suspect of military intentions. This will lead to endless negotiations and threats to world peace, unless we prohibit these weapons now!
My final note is about threats to humanity. Nuclear weapons and nuclear annihilation is not the only threat. While we are sitting here discussions are ongoing in Paris about climate change. To prevent the worst consequences of climate change requires funds, it will cost less the earlier we take action. The modernization of nuclear weapons is extremely expensive.
We are talking about trillions of dollars. If the money used for nuclear weapons and their modernization is channeled to the prevention of climate change we truly have a win-win situation. Two catastrophes will be prevented with the same funds.
I wish you a very inspiring and challenging seminar!
1