New momentum for abolishing nuclear weapons The Humanitarian

New momentum for abolishing nuclear weapons? The Humanitarian Focus, the Marshall Islands lawsuits, Vienna and the NPT. Peter. Low@canterbury. ac. nz

The ongoing struggle against barbaric weapons ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ Dum-dum bullets – banned Poison gas – banned Other chemical weapons– banned Biological weapons – banned Landmines – banned Cluster munitions – banned Nuclear Weapons – not yet banned Uranium weapons – not yet banned Killer robots – not yet banned

some of the players ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ www. abolition 2000. org www. globalzero. org www. ican. org www. mayorsforpeace. org www. abolitionforum. org www. pnnd. org www. unfoldzero. org UNSG Ban Ki-Moon IALANA, IPPNW, WILPF, NAPF etc

Themes 2013 -2015 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ New energy from Civil Society, e. g. ICAN The Red Cross and the re-framing of the debate Broad interest from non-nuclear states Strong commitment from some, notably Austria A sense of urgency The Marshall Islands Lawsuits NPT review in April-May 2015

just two bigger bombs?

background ¡ 1945 Hiroshima & Nagasaki - 70 years ago 1970 entry-into-force of the “Non-Proliferation Treaty” (NPT), which is also a nuclear elimination treaty. ¡ Its Article VI states an obligation to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control” [my emphasis] ¡

1996 “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and the bring to conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects, under strict and effective international control. ” — The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Nuclear weapons are “fundamentally dangerous, extraordinarily expensive, militarily ineffective and morally indefensible” — General Lee Butler, former head of the US Strategic Air Command.

2013 -2014 Series of 3 Intergovernmental Conferences called “The Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons” ¡ Norway - Oslo 2013 ¡ Mexico - Nayarit early 2014 ¡ Austria – Vienna late 2014 “It’s a game-changer, because it gives a better voice to the non-nuclear states and it bases its case on facts, on unquestionable scientific information showing how risky nuclear weapons really are. ” Jorge Lacómoron

Austrian Red Cross

Festsaal, Hofburg Palace, Vienna ¡ Vienna folder10378093_68185731526890 2_1714656162433362275_n. jpg

Alexander Kmentt (Austria)

Attendance at Vienna ¡ ¡ Four nuclear-weapons states: US, UK, India, Pakistan absent: France, Russia, Israel, North Korea observing: China Non-nuclear states: 150 - some in nuclear alliances (e. g. Australia) - many abolitionist (e. g. Austria, Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Mexico, Costa Rica, Chile, Egypt, Togo, Malawi. . . ) ¡

Where is France? ¡ Ambassador Alex Kmentt_300~1. jpg(57 KB

CIVIL SOCIETY ¡ ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) etc. ¡ Hibakusha (nuclear victims) from Japan, Kazakhstan, Australia, USA, Marshall Islands ¡ Nobel Laureates like Desmond Tutu Religious leaders like Pope Francis Former soldiers like Lee Butler and Stanislas Petrov, “The Man who Saved the World” ¡ ¡ also Mayors for Peace, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Diarmament (PNND)

Setsuko, hibakusha from Hiroshima

Test victim Karipbek Kuyukov (Kazakhstan) ¡ Vienna folder10403627_68187017526761 6_5576311827766932865_n. jpg

URGENCY ¡ ¡ “The odds of an unintended nuclear detonation may be low, but the consequences would be high. Low probability events occur all the time. " - Eric Schlosser “Risk increases over time - the longer we wait, the more likely nuclear will occur. " “The expansion, diversification and modernization of nuclear arsenals. . . are increasing the risks that weapons will be used deliberately or through loss of control, unauthorised acts, hasty decisions and miscalculation. " Film: The Man who Saved the World

Nabuo HAYASHI On nuclear weaponry ¡ Existing international law“strangles the beast from many directions but does not strike at its heart". ¡ ¡ "We no longer live in a time when humankind needs to take itself hostage for its own survival. "

from two formal statements NZ Official statement: “What do the nuclear-armed nations mean by security, by what definition is security enhanced by these weapons? ” ¡ NGO statement from “Wildfire”, aimed at the non-nuclear states : "How long will you politely tolerate the procrastination of the nuclear-weapon states before you start negotiating a legal ban whether they come to the table or not? " ¡

Tony de Brum foreign minister 1360 × 2048 - pressenza. com

Marshall Islands Lawsuits ¡ ¡ ¡ North of the Solomons. Population 70000. Former US Trust territory. Victims of nuclear testing in the 1950 s. Now threatened by sea-level rise. Nine Cases to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) claiming that the nuclear states have long breached their legal obligations under existing law, especially under Article VI of the Non. Proliferation Treaty of 1970. To follow the Marshall Islands case, visit www. wagingpeace. org and sign their petition

recent or current proposals ¡ A Nuclear Weapons Convention ¡ like the one for chemical weapons ¡ ¡ A Ban Treaty for those states willing to sign ¡ “Step-by-step”, “building blocks”, or “Framework” of various intruments ¡ Interim measures ¡ to reduce risk

interim measures to reduce risk? ¡ ¡ ¡ CTBT entry into force needed Fissile materials agreement needed UNSC to ban nuclear targeting of populated regions? UNSC to prohibit first use of nuclear weapons? Move warheads from deployment to storage Reduce role of nuclear deterrence in military doctrines

Austrian summary ¡ 1. The impact of nuclear explosions is not contained within national borders. 2. Their consequences are catastrophic and complex. 3. Nuclear tests have left a legacy of environmental and health damage 4. As long as the weapons exist, there is a risk of nuclear which may be low in probability but is nevertheless high in risk. 5. Measures to reduce the risks must be taken now. Reducing them to zero can be achieved only by elimination. 6. An adequate response to nuclear war by emergency services is not possible and never will be. 7. It is hard to see how any real-world use of nuclear weapons would be consistent with existing international regulations of war. 8. The issue of nuclear weapons raises profound moral and ethical questions.

hopeful conclusion A new momentum is building for outlawing, stigmatizing and abolishing the nastiest of all human inventions. ¡ The onus will fall increasingly on the nuclear-weapons states – notably at the NPT review – to abandon their indefensible nuclear-arms policies. ¡

urls ¡ ¡ ¡ To follow the NPT review, visit www. ican. org, www. baselpeaceoffice. org, www. pnnd. org and www. acdn. net For official reports of the Vienna Conference, google HINW 14 www. bmeia. gv. at/en/european-foreignpolicy/disarmament To follow the Marshall Islands case, visit www. wagingpeace. org (the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation) and sign their petition