Text från PDF
S T O C K H O L M 2 0 0 9
REACHING NUCLEAR
DISARMAMENT
THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN STRENGTHENING THE NPT
CONFERENCE REPORT:
CONTENT
An open window for reaching zero ...........................4
Reaching Nuclear Disarmament –
from Visions to Reality ............................................11
Where do we go from here? ..................................12
The Legal and Normative Framework –
Challenges and Possibilities ...................................15
Nuclear Weapon States –
Roles and Responsibilities .....................................16
Sustaining Security on the Road to Zero ................17
Mobilizing People for Change .................................17
NATO, EU and Nuclear Weapons in Europe ...........18
Space, Missiles and Control Regimes ....................18
Energy Demands and Climate Change –
a Role for Nuclear Energy? ....................................19
The Middle East – Suggestions for
Reaching a Secure and Peaceful Region ..............20
Reaching Critical Will for Disarmament .................21
Triggering Negotiations for Abolition .......................22
Civil Society Strategies and Priorities
for the NPT RevCon ...............................................24
Raising Public Opinion – Education,
Media and Grassroot activity ..................................24
Accomplishments and remaining Tasks –
Lessons from the NPT’s 13 Steps and
the Blix Commission ...............................................25
The New Generation – Achieving Nuclear
Disarmament in the 21st Century ...........................26
Mobilizing the Next Generation for
Nuclear Disarmament .............................................28
Summary and Reflections ......................................29
APPENDIX:
List of Speakers ......................................................30
Conference Program ..............................................32
LAYOUT & ART DIRECTION:
E&G Design
egdesign.gabriel@gmail.com
PHOTOGRAPHY
Dennis Dahlqwist, Gabriel Holmbom
TEXT EDITOR: Emma Rosengren
The editor expresses sincere gratitude to all volunteers who
made this conference possible, especially Conference As
sistant Malin Nilsson, Proof Readers Susi Snyder and John
Loretz, and Henrik Salander for sharing experience and know
ledge.
The views expressed in this report are
not necessarily those of the organizers.
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
JOSEFIN LIND | SWEDISH PHYSICIANS FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR WAR
6-8 of November 2009 the Swedish Network for Nuclear Disarmament, in co-operation with several
organi zations, held an international conference on Nuclear Disarmament in Stockholm, Sweden.
The purpose of the conference was to increase public interest in nuclear disarmament and to support and
inspire the existing movement against nuclear weapons that acts on national and international levels.
More than 300 women and men from 30 countries participated in the conference, and we are convinced that the
conference served as an inspiration for both participants and speakers. With retrospect we can see several positive
and productive initiatives as concrete results of the conference. Among other things, the proposal for a Nuclear
Abolition Day on the 5th of June was widely discussed during the conference. Work is already done to co-ordinate
5th of June events around the world in order to address the question of Nuclear Abolishment.
In this conference report you will find summaries and analysis of discussions that took place during the confer-
ence. We hope that this report is useful for people who participated, for those who could not participate, and for
those who want to know more about civil society’s visions and demands for the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
The Swedish Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, in their capacity of principal of the Swedish Network
for Nuclear Disarmament, thanks everybody who made this conference a big success. Enjoy your reading!
For those who
believe in progress
Conference coordinator
Emma Rosengren is
currently working on
disarmament issues
with the Swedish
Section of Women’s
International League for
Peace and Freedom.
AN OPEN WINDOW
FOR REACHING ZERO
EMMA ROSENGREN | CONFERENCE COORDINATOR SWEDISH NETWORK FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
During the three days of the conference
the words “open window” were frequently
repeated. For many of us who participated,
those words are still in our heads as if they
were the refrain of a popular song. In fact,
those words also symbolize the
atmos phere of the conference,
featuring a great number of par-
ticipants and experts from dif-
ferent parts of the world.
The open window mentality also influ-
enced many speakers. A lot of the posi-
tive tones seem to have their origins in the
new US administration and the recently
improved climate for international diplo-
macy. Lena Hjelm Wallén, former Swedish
Minister of Foreign Affairs, emphasized
that “today we can welcome the window of
opportunity which has been opened most
recently. The preconditions for the next
NPT Review Conference are by far much
lighter than some years ago. President Ba-
rack Obama has shown his personal engagement in dis-
armament and expressed his ambition that the objective
should be a world free from nuclear weapons.” Rebecca
Johnson of Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplo-
macy encouraged us to follow up on the positive tones
The Role of Nuclear Weapons
One of the main messages of the conference was the
importance of challenging traditional realist concepts of
security politics, particularly that military dominance
and military security are not appropriate approaches
to meeting the challenges the world faces today. Hence,
the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines needs
to be diminished. According to Middle Powers Initiative
(MPI) Chair Ambassador Henrik Salander, this notion
now influences previous defenders of the traditional
definitions; “[a]fter the Prague speech and the Security
Council Summit, there’s the beginning of a more wide-
spread realization that nuclear weapons create insecurity
rather than security and that reliance on them has to be
phased out.” Stressing the humanitarian dimension of
security and the new era of complex interdependence,
Ban All Nukes generation (BANg) coordinator Nina
Eisenhardt raised the “question of security for whom,
when governments are arguing that weapons will pro-
vide security. There is a big difference between military
security and human security and this must be further
stressed. The concept of military security is not under-
standable for us who grew up without experiencing the
cold war and having, thanks to the globalization and
technical improvements, contacts and friends all over
the world.” Clearly, the link between nuclear weapons
and national security is deeply rooted in the realist as-
sumption about military strength, which influences the
that are being articulated by state representatives; “Now
that Presidents and Prime Ministers all over the world are
expressing their support for the vision of a world free of
nuclear weapons, it is time to work out in earnest how
to turn this vision into reality, not in some long distant
future, but in our lifetimes. This is possible, practical and,
I argue, necessary and urgent!”
However, experts and participants were likewise con-
cerned that a lot must be improved, and that action is
urgently needed in order to keep the window open. Ray
Acheson of Reaching Critical Will, a project of the Wom-
en’s International League for Peace and Freedom, summa-
rized; “[e]veryone seems to agree that we need to act now,
before the Review Conference. This is critical. We agree
that we have to act at many levels—we need education
campaigns for people in the streets and for politicians and
decision-makers. We need direct actions, protests, coor-
dinated visibility. We need to engage parliamentarians,
mayors, and other elected individuals. Everyone seems to
agree we need coordinated strategy among all these ele-
ments. But how do we link all these efforts? Do we have a
unifying message?” In asking that, Ms Acheson pinpoint-
ed the very reason for this conference: what is the unified
message of civil society organizations to world leaders and
decision makers? How can we mobilize our criticism and
support together, in order to advance the nuclear disar-
mament agenda – leading to nuclear abolition.
4
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
nuclear reliance in today’s security politics. Therefore, it is
critical to point out what national security really means.
This was further explained by Ray Acheson, who argued
that “what [national security] means is security for the
elite, technologically-proficient classes in the state. The
‘national interest’, as it is typically invoked in this sense,
does not refer to the well-being
of the general population but
of those managing the mili-
tary-industrial-academic com-
plex.” According to her, “the
discourse of ‘national security’
needs to be dismantled”, and
the “idea that nuclear weapons
do not protect anyone except
the elite is a really powerful argument for their elimina-
tion”, she said.
Challenging Deterrence
The core element of the realist security concept is the re-
liance on deterrence. Even though the theory has been
widely challenged, especially by recent feminist critique
of traditional International Relations literature, the belief
in deterrence is still going strong. Professor Jozef Goldb-
lat was one of the experts who questioned the deterrence
approach, saying that “[a]lthough there is no evidence
that the existence of nuclear weapons and the declared
readiness to use them have prevented the outbreak of
another world conflict, there is a fairly widespread be-
lief that nuclear deterrence helped to maintain peace over
several decades.” Mr. Goldblat also noted that “[i]t is [...]
surprising that the strategic doctrines, those concerning
the use of nuclear weapons, remain basically unchanged”
in the new post Cold War international political climate.
Bringing an ethical dimension into the discussion on de-
terrence, John Loretz of the International Physicians for
the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) suggested that
“[r]ather than argue about whether deterrence ‘works’ or
not, let’s insist that threatening another state with the to-
tal destruction of its cities and its economy, not to men-
tion the mass murder of its population and the poison-
ing of its environment, is neither acceptable nor
effective as a policy for ‘protecting’ one’s
own people.” According to him, the
time has come to let go of the old
fashioned deterrence doctrine and
to replace it with effective policies
protecting the lives of human be-
ings and the environment.
Rule of Law and
Legal Reform
The legal aspects of nuclear dis-
armament were given significant
attention in particular on the second
day of the conference. It was clear to the
audience that international law and dis-
armament are complicated – but not com-
patible – concepts. After having presented an
important overview of the legal dimension of nuclear
disarmament, Former Under Secretary-General for Le-
gal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations
Ambassador Hans Corell emphasized that “the rule of
law is a determining factor in the future. The rule of law,
human rights and democracy are preconditions for in-
ternational peace and security.” In a similar way, United
Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs
H.E Sergio Duarte confirmed his belief in the rule of
law, while also noting that international law is not con-
stant but can be influenced and improved by, for exam-
ple, non state actors; “I believe that civil society can do a
lot to strengthen the rule of law in disarmament. This in-
cludes new efforts to achieve the early entry into force of
the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty [CTBT],
and to commence negotiations on a fissile material treaty
[FMCT] at the Conference on Disar-
mament in Geneva.”
“the idea that nuclear weapons
do not protect anyone except
the elite is a really powerful
argument for their elimination”
5
During the conference Hans Blix was awarded the title of ‘UN
friend of the year’ by the United Nations Association of Sweden.
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
Nuclear testing and
fissile material
It is a fact that nuclear weapons continue to threaten
people’s lives as long as they exist, or as John Loretz put
it; “nuclear weapons have always been — and continue
to be — the best argument against nuclear weapons”.
One of the often ignored consequences of nuclear
weapons is their impact in regions where nuclear tests
have taken place. Ms. Sandra Fong of Women’s Inter-
national League for Peace and Freedom, who lives in
Fiji, explained that “[i]t is no news that nuclear weapon
states ignored the health and environmental impacts of
the tests and despite the end of nuclear testing and the
establishment of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone
Treaty in 1998, people in these islands have been dis-
placed with many facing serious health issues and con-
tinue to live in radioactive contaminated environments.”
As a solution to the problem of nuclear testing, many
speakers highlighted the urgency of bringing the CTBT
into force. Among others, Dr Hans Blix, chair of the
Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC),
called for “[t]he ending of all nuclear weapons tests by
bringing the CTBT into force. China that has always
said it intends to ratify the treaty could do the test ban
a great service by now going ahead with its ratification.
Such action might help pushing the process in the US
and other states. And why should not Israel and Iran go
ahead?” However, some speakers emphasized the risk of
putting too much weight in getting the CTBT ratified
at any cost. Ray Acheson argued that “[t]he CTBT is
not worth the price of modernisation, undermined as it
is by technological advances. The continuation of iner-
tial confinement fusion and subcritical tests for warhead
purposes circumvent the CTBT’s long-held purpose of
capping vertical as well as horizontal proliferation.”
Many speakers also emphasized the importance of get-
ting rid of the stalemate that has characterized the Con-
ference on Disarmament (CD) for a decade, and to start
negotiations on a FMCT. Meanwhile, it is important to
make sure that the negotiation of a FMCT, as well as
the CTBT, does not prevent other steps to advance the
disarmament agenda.
No use of Nuclear Weapons
No use of Nuclear Weapons was also mentioned by
several speakers. For example, Dr Rebecca Johnson ex-
plained that “[i]n its landmark advisory opinion of July
1996, the ICJ found that in almost all situations the use
of nuclear weapons would violate international humani-
tarian law. Declaring the use of nuclear weapons a crime
against humanity would not eliminate nuclear dangers
overnight, but would have major impact in taking nu-
clear weapons off the lustrous list of objects of political
status and desire. They would then truly be treated as
weapons of terror that no sane or civilized person would
want or be able to use.” However, like many other ex-
perts addressing the conference, Dr Johnson was more
concerned about the concept of no first use. She argued
that “[t]he adoption of no first use agreements would be
compatible with second strike concepts of deterrence. By
legitimizing the retaliatory use of nuclear weapons when
deterrence fails, no first use could induce complacency
and actually impede nuclear disarmament, keeping alive
the dangerous illusion that some uses of nuclear weap-
ons are okay. But any such retaliation would indiscrimi-
nately kill large numbers of civilians. It would amount
to a bloodthirsty act of vengeance, not a rational means
of defence.” Thus, the no use policy should comprise all
use, and not be restricted only to first use.
Nuclear Weapons Convention
Since the 1996 ICJ advisory opinion, the support for a
Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) has grown signifi-
cantly over the years, and today, more organizations and
more countries than ever support the idea of a NWC.
With a great contribution from principal model NWC
co-author Merav Datan, as well as from other experts,
6
Rebecca Johnson –
Founding Director and
Editor of the Acronym
Institute for Disarmament
Diplomacy, UK.
Sergio Duarte from
Brazil is the High
Representative for
Disarmament Affairs of
the United Nations.
Ehase Agyeno –
International Student
Representative of
IPPNW.
Susi Snyder – former
Secretary General of
Women’s International
League for Peace and
Freedom, now serving as
Programme Leader with
IKV Pax Christi.
Jan Lodal – former Presi-
dent of the Atlantic Council
of the United States 2005
- 2006, and previously
served as Principal Deputy
Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy.
Henrik Salander –
Swedish Ambassador and
Chairperson of the Middle
Powers Initiative.
P O R T R A I T P H O T O S : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
many discussions covered diverse aspects of a possible legal
framework prohibiting the development, testing, produc-
tion, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear
weapons, as well as the production of fissile material suitable
for making nuclear weapons.
H.E. Duarte confirmed his support for a NWC when refer-
ring the five point plan of the UN Secretary General; “From
a global perspective, the best way to achieve this goal would
be through negotiation of a nuclear weapon convention, or
a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments,
as Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon proposed in his 24 Oc-
tober 2008 speech on disarmament. I know of no other way
this goal can fully be achieved in a manner that is universal,
transparent, irreversible, verifiable, and binding.” Ambassa-
dor Salander also spoke warmly about a NWC and empha-
sized the groundbreaking work of civil society organizations
in promoting the same. Ray Acheson, John Loretz, Rebecca
Johnson, Regina Hagen, Lena Helm Wallén and many oth-
ers also pointed out the NWC as a cornerstone in future ac-
complishments, and Dr Johnson especially highlighted that
even though governments might not feel comfortable refer-
encing the nuclear weapons convention in their statements,
they should be encouraged to at least “endorse the UN Sec-
retary General’s five-point disarmament plan”, or they “could
consider phrasing along the lines of the 2009 Chair’s (first)
draft recommendations” as ways to mainstream the conven-
tion into governments references.
Disarmament versus
non-proliferation
When talking about the NPT, the word balance is never far
away. The three pillars of the NPT, whether problematic or
not, are often referred to as being of equal importance thus
needing equal attention. However, the discriminatory system
of Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Non Nuclear Weap-
on States (NNWS) embedded in the NPT has provoked a
system of blaming and shaming on the sometimes bipolar
diplomatic arena. Ambassador Salander spoke briefly on this
contradiction, saying that “[t]he NWS regard non-prolifera-
tion as the decisive element, while the NNWS view disarma-
ment as the neglected part of the bargain, generally speak-
ing. The NWS’ rhetoric does normally not admit this stance,
of course, while the NNWS point to the double standards
of the NWS.” The discussion of balance is therefore often
blurred, and the battle of the paragraphs leads to a deadlock.
However, both NWS and NNWS do have obligations ac-
cording to the NPT, obligations that need to be fulfilled.
The role of Nuclear Weapon States
The role of NWS and their obligations according to article
VI was on the conference agenda several times. Mr Jan Lodal,
co-author of the Foreign Affairs article The Logic of Zero, was
one of many who mentioned the role of the two main NWS
– US and Russia. According to Mr Lodal, the US should
take a leading role in the disarmament process. Dr Blix also
commented on US and Russian disarmament obligations,
emphasizing the importance of “reduction of the stocks of
nuclear weapons – now some 25.000. The process should
start by the US and Russia that have by far the largest stocks.
This is in fact taking place through the talks on a follow up
treaty to the START 1. The process should expand to com-
prise all the other states that have nuclear weapons”. Thus,
not only the US and Russia should decrease their nuclear
arsenals, but other NWS also need to do the same.
One tricky player among the NWS, France, certainly
continues to constitute one of the obstacles to reach-
ing zero. Dominique Lalanne of Abolition 2000 argued
that apart from the official blaming on countries such as
President of the Russian affiliation of IPPNW Sergei Kolesnikov
(left) in discussion with UN high Representative for Disarmament
Affairs Sergio Duarte.
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
North Korea and Iran, national identity also influ-
ences nuclear politics in the country; “one of the rea-
sons making it difficult to have an open discussion
of the French attitude is the French view of national
identity. Nuclear weapons are a legacy of General De
Gaulle, and that reflects the end of World War II, and
so nuclear weapons were and are still seen as the new
way for France to be part of the international forum.
Discussions with French officials could surprise you.
It is often stated that nuclear weapons are a guarantee
for peace: ‘the proof being that no war between nations
happened in Europe since WWII, and secondly nuclear
weapons are also a guarantee of independence’ officials
say.” Thus, in order to reach the commitments according
to Article VI of the NPT, rhetoric, mentalities and state
behavior need to change simultaneously.
Modernization
Even if US-Russian bilateral negotiations succeed and
the post-START agreement is a strong, legally binding
treaty, concern was raised about ongoing modernization
of arsenals even though their numbers are reduced. This
is not only a problem when it comes to US and Russia.
According to Ray Acheson, “[t]he US is by no means
alone in wanting to maintain and modernize its nuclear
arsenal. Britain has already made this clear. As proof of
its commitment to nuclear disarmament in some far off
future, it has offered a plan to build only three new nu-
clear-armed submarines instead of four. China, France,
and Russia are also modernizing their nuclear arsenals,
as are India and Pakistan, and Israel. None will choose
to be left behind.” Thus, when the NPT NWS choose to
modernize their arsenals, they send out signals to states
outside of the treaty to follow their lead.
Dominique Lalanne linked modernization to the spirit
of good faith; “In the disarmament debate it is essential
that contributions be in ‘good faith’. That is not only
mentioned in the NPT, article VI, but also in the 1996
Statement of the ICJ. The question is: ‘What is ‘good
faith’ and by what criteria are we to judge ‘good faith’?
Is a modernization program compatible with good faith
on disarmament issues?’” According to Mr Lalanne the
answer is clearly no; “the new M51 [...] missile provides
possible new strategies for French deterrence, such as
the possibility of targeting Beijing, the M51 range be-
ing 9000 km. The previous M45 missile had a range of
“only” 6000 km, enabling the targeting of Moscow.”
Hence, modernization of existing arsenals is not an act
of good faith.
Operational Status
Lowering the operational status was also put forward as a
strategy to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons. Accord-
ing to Ambassador Maj-Britt Theorin, “[t]o take nuclear
weapons off alert will dramatically reduce the chance of
an accidental or unauthorized nuclear weapons launch.
All nuclear weapons must be taken off alert. This could
in the first instance be adopted by the nuclear weapon
states unilaterally. Separation of nuclear warheads from
their delivery vehicles is a must and they should be placed
far from each other and not easily be put together again.
The physical separation of warheads from vehicles would
strongly reinforce the gains achieved by taking nuclear
forces off alert.” However, the separation of warheads cord
“...it is essential that
contributions be in ‘good
faith’... The question is:
What is ‘good faith’”
8
John Loretz –
Program Director of Inter-
national Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War,
Boston US.
Regina Hagen is an
expert with Inter-
national Network of
Engineers and Scien-
tists Against Nuclear
Weapons INESAP.
Dominique Lalanne –
French disarmament
expert, working in the
Abolition 2000 network.
Sandra Fong is a
WILPF member in Fiji,
and one of the par-
ticipants in the youth
delegation.
Regina Hagen is an
expert with International
Network of Engineers and
Scientists Against Nuclear
Weapons INESAP.
Sandra Fong
– WILPF
member in Fiji, and one of
the participants in the youth
delegation.
P O R T R A I T P H O T O S : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
from delivery vehicles is by no means synonymous with dis-
armament, but rather a step to reduce the immediate risk of
nuclear weapons being used by accident.
The role of Non Nuclear
Weapon States
It is clear that the NWS have to live up to certain very im-
portant obligations according to Article VI of the NPT, but
NNWS also have obligations. Ray Acheson argued that
“many non-nuclear weapon states also have a role to play.
Thirty non-nuclear weapon states shelter under the US nu-
clear umbrella.” Clearly, strategic and military alliances make
the term NNWS a bit blurred.
NATO
NATO’s strategic concept and its reliance on nuclear weapons
is an obstacle to disarmament. According to Ray Acheson,
“removing nuclear sharing from NATO’s Strategic Concept,
combined with removal of nuclear weapons from Europe,
would be an important confidence-building measure and
would likely facilitate bilateral dialogue that could lead to
much deeper cuts in the US and Russian nuclear arsenals.”
Similarly, Dr Blix emphasized that “[w]ithdrawing NATO
nuclear weapons from Europe and a corresponding with-
drawal of Russian nuclear weapons deeper into Russia – [is]
a confidence building action.”
With the NATO strategic concept being revised in the near
future, an opportunity has come for NNWS to change the
cold war policy of the military alliance. Ambassador Salander
spoke on the theme saying that “we advise middle powers to
say clearly that ‘extended deterrence’ can’t justify an expan-
sive role of nuclear weapons, or disregard commitments to a
diminished role and security assurances. NATO non-nuclear
members also have a big task, updating the NATO nucle-
ar doctrine and reconciling it with disarmament goals.” To
make your voice heard regarding the new concept, Ms. Susi
Snyder recommends visiting the NATO interactive forum at
http://natostratcon.info/forum/.
Middle East
Many experts emphasized the importance of reaching peace
and security in the Middle East. Ambassador Salander said
that “[s]urprisingly, in this year’s PrepCom, some language
on the Middle East managed to stay alive. It included ideas
like a special coordinator, a subsidiary body and/or a future
special conference. Ambitious efforts, like steps towards
a NWFZ, are of course very difficult at present, but there
are intermediate stages that could be discussed, like the Blix
Commission’s proposal to freeze proliferation-sensitive fuel-
cycle activities in the region.“ Ms. Ray Acheson emphasized
certain critical steps, including; “convening a conference af-
ter 2011 to begin negotiations on a framework or treaty to
achieve a zone in the Middle East free of nuclear and other
weapons of mass destruction; and appointing a standing
NPT body to follow-up intercessionally and support efforts
toward these ends.” She also highlighted the problem of dou-
ble standards, arguing that “outside powers cannot call for Is-
rael to join the NPT while arming its neighbors; neither can
they sanction Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle programme or call for a
WMD free zone while enabling Israel’s nuclear programme.“
The Middle East situation constitutes an obstacle in the work
for a nuclear weapon free world, and needs to be dealt with
without double standards during the coming RevCon.
The Role of Civil Society
Fortunately, conference participants were able to agree
on the importance of civil society activity. According
to Dr. Rebecca Johnson, “NGOs and civil society kept
alive the hope of a CTBT and worked closely with many
Merav Datan – Board
Member and former
Research Director of
Lawyers’ Committee on
Nuclear Policy LCNP
Jozef Goldblat of the Ge-
neva International Peace
Research Institute GIPRI
Master of Ceremony Josefine Karlsson of WILPF
Sweden (left) with conference assistant Josefin
Lind of the Swedish affiliation of IPPNW.
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
diplomats and officials to create the conditions to bring
the treaty to conclusion. [...] Civil society has long en-
gaged very actively on the issues of the disarmament
and nonproliferation of nuclear, chemical and biologi-
cal weapons, and to control and eliminate guns, small
arms and light weapons.” In a similar way, Ambassador
Salander argued that “[i]t has been proven since decades
back that civil society can play a deeply influential role
in nuclear weapons issues.” Ambassador Salander par-
ticularly emphasized the ethical dimension, stating that
“[c]ivil society is our “hot line” to the neglected part of
the nuclear weapons dilemma: the ethical dimension.
Mankind must reach enough moral maturity to rid it-
self of the self-invented means of destroying itself. The
nuclear weapons era must be a parenthesis in the history
of mankind. So civil society has a lot to do, and the re-
maining part of the work starts today.”
Information and Education
H.E. Sergio Duarte was one of many speakers who spoke
warmly about civil society organizations and their con-
tributions to disarmament. According to him, one of
the most important roles of civil society is to provide
information to the general public. He said; “[w]hile the
States parties are the main participants in the review, the
information supplied in this process is also quite useful
to groups in civil society that are monitoring these con-
ferences. In many ways, these groups
help the general public understand the
wider purposes of the treaty and what
States are doing—or not doing—to
fulfill their commitments”, thus em-
phasized the importance of informa-
tion and critical evaluation.
The message of the youth delegation to the conference
was similar to that of H.E. Duarte. Nina Eisenhardt,
speaking on behalf of all of the youth who attended the
Palme seminar Mobilizing the Next Generation for Nuclear
Disarmament, argued that “[t]he most important point
we agreed upon was the urgency of awareness raising.
The horrors from nuclear wars should no longer stay a
non-issue in education. We have to inform people about
the danger of nuclear weapons and visualize the military
costs vs. social spending and sustainable development.
This has to come both from the civil society, the govern-
ments and the media.” According to the youth delega-
tion, it is not only a responsibility of civil society orga-
nizations to provide information about the dangers of
nuclear weapons, but it is up to governments and other
actors to do the same.
Openness and Transparency
Another thing that was strongly supported by H.E. Du-
arte was democracy in the disarmament process, and
improved openness and transparency. He especially em-
phasized that civil society organizations have a vital role
when it comes to promoting accountability, arguing that
“civil society must continue its efforts to strengthen ac-
countability and transparency, especially with respect
to basic information about the aggregate size of nuclear
arsenals, holdings of delivery vehicles, stocks of fissile
material held for weapons and other useful information.
The UN Secretariat stands ready to serve as a common
repository of such data.” H.E Duarte continued and said
that “[i]n this connection, one of the most important
roles for civil society is to encourage governments to be
more open in describing both their own nuclear weapon
programmes and their efforts to promote global nuclear
disarmament. Facts help in stimulating constructive po-
litical action.” In sum, speakers genuinely agreed on the
fundamental role that civil society organizations play in
the game of disarmament. ■
“civil society is our ‘hot line’
to the neglected part of the
nuclear weapons dilemma:
the ethical dimension”
10
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
LINNEA LAGERGREN (WILPF)
Chaired by Ms. Susi Snyder (WILPF), the opening panel
outlined the issue of how to transform the vision of nuclear
disarmament into reality. Focus was to a great extent on what
the role of civil society is in promoting a stronger disarmament
regime.
Showing great optimism, Dr. Hans Blix (WMDC) underlined that while the win-
dow of opportunity for nuclear disarmament was lost at the end of the Cold War,
we can avoid repeating the same mistake today. Dr. Blix said that strengthening
the NPT to include more effective inspections is important, and he also stressed
that, matched by a Russian withdrawal of nuclear weapons deeper into Russian
territory, NATO nuclear weapons must be withdrawn from Europe. Furthermore,
according to Dr. Blix, the near time outlook for disarmament depends upon five
factors: US- Russian relations; settlement of regional conflicts (e.g. India/ Paki-
stan, Middle East); interdependence among countries, meaning adjustment in-
stead of confrontation; multilateral institutions as fora for joint deliberation and
mechanisms for cooperation; and raised public opinion – something that the civil
society could and should work on.
Ambassador Henrik Salander (MPI) argued that even though the NPT is in per-
petual crisis, the treaty holds. Moreover, he stressed that numbers are not im-
portant for most NNWS, but the role nuclear weapons play in security policies.
Therefore, underlining that negotiations between NWS and NNWS have always
been unbalanced, he argued that what is needed is dialogue instead of monologue.
Furthermore, arguing that the NWS need to make clear what their ambitions
are to downgrade their reliance on nuclear weapons, Mr. Salander underlined
how crucial the formulations of the forthcoming US Nuclear Posture Review are.
Moreover, while we have the US leadership we want to have, the countering forces
to the President’s vision will be strong, and thus, arguments and activities must
be sharpened in both governments and civil society. Mr. Salander also underlined
that the necessary steps to nuclear disarmament (e.g. deep cuts between Russia and
the US, a fissile materials treaty, ratification of the CTBT etc.) have not yet been
undertaken. Therefore, he encouraged civil society to keep up its work, point-
ing to previous important actions such as the presentation of the Model Nuclear
Weapons Convention.
Dr. Rebecca Johnson (Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy) acknowl-
edged that civil society often gets patronized and that there are sometimes set-
backs, but encouraged civil society to remain committed, focused and active. This
could be done, she said, by working on three realizable disarmament objectives
with the power to move both politicians and the public. First, she said, the process
towards a nuclear weapon convention has to get started. Second, there needs to be
recognition in law that any use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against hu-
manity. Third, Dr. Johnson argued that it is important to get one nuclear weapon
state to renounce its dependency on nuclear weapons. While admitting that these
are not the only campaigns to pursue, she underlined that many governments are
currently pushing for these objectives, principles and steps. Therefore, Dr. Johnson
argued, it is important for civil society to be at least a step ahead in its thinking
about this, because by doing so civil society movements can be built and the con-
ditions for nuclear abolition created.
■
REACHING NUCLEAR
DISARMAMENT –
FROM VISIONS TO REALITY
F R I DAY O P E N I N G PA N E L
11
Ray Acheson is the
Program Director of
Reaching Critical Will, a
project of the Women’s
International League for
Peace and Freedom.
WHERE DO WE
GO FROM HERE?
RAY ACHESON | REACHING CRITICAL WILL OF THE WOMEN’S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM
At the conference, participants agreed that
civil society needs to take action on many lev-
els leading up to the 2010 NPT Review Confer-
ence and beyond. NGOs need to engage: in
education campaigns for people in the streets
and for politicians and decision-
makers; in direct actions, protests,
and actors of coordinated visibility;
with parliamentarians, mayors, and
other elected individuals. Everyone
seemed to agree that civil society
needs coordinated strategy among
all these elements. But how do we
link all these efforts? Do we have a
unifying message?
The following are a few specific points to
educate on, demonstrate about, mobilize
around, and lobby on, in the lead up to
the Review Conference and beyond.
1. Reducing the role of
nuclear weapons in
security doctrines
To reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security pos-
tures, the value of nuclear weapons has to be diminished.
The US is still behind its own rhetoric when it comes
to this. During the UNGA First Committee, the US
delegation continued to maintain that states “acquired
nuclear weapons in order to promote what they saw as
their national security” and argued, “If they are to give
them up, they must be convinced that doing so will not
harm their security and that of their friends and allies.”
Here, many non-nuclear weapon states also have a role
to play. Thirty non-nuclear weapon states shelter under
the US nuclear umbrella. Many proponents of retaining
nuclear weapons in the United States espouse “extended
deterrence” as their justification. Public statements from
governments under the US nuclear umbrella stating that
they believe their security commitments will still be vi-
able without nuclear weapons would thus remove a key
obstacle to deeper reductions in the US nuclear arsenal.
Citizens in NATO countries, Australia, South Korea, and
Japan have long advocated for their countries to let go of
the cold war nuclear umbrellas and forge more indepen-
dent and balanced relationships for national, regional,
and international security. Now key legislators from all
these countries are joining the call. We need to support
these efforts and draw attention around the world to the
movements against nuclear weapons in these countries.
Furthermore, removing nuclear sharing from NATO’s
Strategic Concept, combined with removal of nuclear
weapons from Europe, would be an important confi-
dence-building measure and would likely facilitate bilat-
eral dialogue that could lead to much deeper cuts in the
US and Russian nuclear arsenals.
Very briefly, and very specifically, civil society should
call for the following commitments to be undertaken by
nuclear weapon states at the Review Conference:
• agreeing to legally-binding security assurances not
to attack non-nuclear weapon states with nuclear
weapons;
• committing not to use nuclear weapons as a tool
for “pre-emptive strike”;
• rejecting counterforce and countervalue doctrines;
• excluding “extended deterrence” arrangements in
their doctrines; and
• declaring that as a matter of national policy they
will not design, develop, or produce new design
nuclear warheads or modernise existing warheads.
2. Dismantle the traditional
national security discourse
We also need to pay attention to the discourse around
nuclear weapons, which is fundamental to public percep-
tion—and thus fundamental for our advocacy on reduc-
ing the value of nuclear weapons. Changing the discourse
is a fundamental element to eliminating nuclear weap-
ons. We’re going to have to shift the discourse away from
national security to global security, of course. But even
more importantly, perhaps the first step, is that we have
to really assess what national security actually means. Be-
cause right now, what it means is security for the elite,
technologically-proficient classes in the state. The “na-
tional interest,” as it is typically invoked in this sense,
12
P H O T O : G A B R I E L H O L M B O M
does not refer to the well-being of the general population
but of those managing the military-industrial-academic
complex. It is in its interest to keep money pumping into
its nuclear weapon programmes. The nuclear weapons
establishment constitutes a formidable set of institutions
that see their interests as being well served by a mode of
global military dominance ultimately underwritten by
nuclear weapons.
The recommendation here is one for civil society to ques-
tion the meaning of “national security”. For concrete
nuclear disarmament to actually happen, the discourse
of “national security” needs to be dismantled. This is un-
likely to happen by the Review Conference. So what we
can do is at least identify who benefits from the main-
tenance of nuclear weapons, what their interests are and
what their role is in sustaining high-tech militarism.
And while this analysis is unlikely to enter into the main-
stream dialogue at the Review Conference, these ideas
can guide our advocacy in the lead-up, as a way to have
citizens increase the pressure on their governments. This
idea that nuclear weapons do not protect anyone except
the elite is a really powerful argument for their elimina-
tion.
3. Cease the modernization of
nuclear weapon systems
Most nuclear weapon states are undergoing or planning
modernisation and life extension programmes for their
nuclear weapon systems. In the US, this modernization
will go hand in hand with reductions in the nuclear ar-
senal as part of the current arms control talks with Rus-
sia and will likely be one of the conditions attached to
the US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty. If the nuclear-armed states are committed
to maintaining and modernizing their nuclear weapon
complexes, how are these states going to agree to give
up their nuclear weapons? Trading some arms control
agreements or arsenal reduction for modernised nuclear
weapons research and production facilities capable of
building the nuclear threat anew is not disarmament. If
the danger of nuclear war is to be eliminated, ceasing to
plan and build for an eternal nuclear threat must come
early, not late, in the process.
And so this has to be one of the key things that civil
society and other governments really advocate strongly
against. Modernisation is not acceptable, for any reason.
Nuclear weapon states cannot be allowed to get away
with espousing their dream for a nuclear weapon free
world while upgrading their weapon systems.
13
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
4. Consideration of negotiations
on an international framework
to achieve a nuclear weapon
free world
Civil society should encourage all states parties to the
NPT to commit to the negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons
Convention in their statements to the NPT and push for
it to be included in any final document. We should also
ask for formal responses from governments to the model
NWC, in order to give us an opportunity to engage in
direct dialogue on its substance with as many delegations
as possible.
5. Measures to implement the
1995 Middle East resolution
Toward implementing the 1995 resolution, many gov-
ernments are beginning to express support for concrete
measures the 2010 Review Conference can take, includ-
ing:
• convening a conference after 2011 to begin
negotiations on a framework or treaty to achieve a
zone in the Middle East free of nuclear and other
w
eapons of mass destruction; and
• appointing a standing NPT body to follow-up
intercessionally and support efforts toward these
ends.
These are fairly simple steps that can be taken. They
were proposed by Egypt during this cycle’s PrepComs
and the Russian, US, and UK delegations appeared
interested—which is good. However, the Egyptians are
saying that the US interest is superficial at best. Indeed,
apparently it was the US that strongly objected to any
reference to the Middle East in UN Security Council
Resolution 1887.
This spells danger, because the Middle East is a very im-
portant issue for this Review Conference, as we heard
from the panel on this issue earlier at this conference.
We really need to advocate for serious commitment to
the proposals I just mentioned.
In addition, governments need to avoid employing
double-standards in the region. For example, outside
powers cannot call for Israel to join the NPT while
arming its neighbours; neither can they sanction Iran’s
nuclear fuel cycle programme or call for a WMD free
zone while enabling Israel’s nuclear programme. ■
“For concrete nuclear
disarmament to actually
happen, the discourse of
‘national security’ needs
to be dismantled”
14
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
THE LEGAL AND NORMATIVE
FRAMEWORK - CHALLENGES
AND POSSIBILITIES
AMILA KONJHODZIC (WILPF)
This panel, chaired by Prof. Gunnar Westberg (IPPNW), fea-
tured former Legal Counsel of the UN Ambassador Hans
Corell, Board Member of LCNP Merav Datan, Prof. Jozef Gold-
blat of GIPRI, and Ambassador Igor S. Neverov of the Russian
Federation to Sweden.
Prof. Westberg opened the panel by stating that NGO ́s particularly should care
about the human aspects of nuclear weapons and that the normative and legal as-
pects primarily are tools to achieve what we want - a world free from nuclear weap-
ons. Ambassador Corell addressed the present legal situation; institutions, laws and
treaties. He especially emphasized certain items on the UNGA and its First Com-
mittee agenda, the role of the Security Council, the work of the UN Disarmament
Commission, the role of the Conference on Disarmament, and the accomplish-
ments of UNODA. After this overview, Amb. Corell reasoned on the legality of
nuclear weapons, by focusing on the advisory opinion of the ICJ from 1996. Ac-
cording to him, it follows from the ruling that the threat or use of nuclear weapons
would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed
conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However,
the element of self defense in international law makes it difficult to decide whether
the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be unlawful in extreme circumstances
where the survival of the State would be at stake. Furthermore, Amb. Corell spoke
about the NPT, IAEA, CTBT, CTBTO, a treaty against weapons in space, Nuclear
Weapon Free Zone Treaties, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, bilateral disarma-
ment treaties, and conventions for the suppression of terrorism.
Mr. Goldblat, who has worked on the nuclear weapons issue for many years, argued
that there is no evidence that the existence of nuclear weapons has a preventive
function. Still there is a belief that nuclear weapons have kept peace for several de-
cades. According to Mr. Goldblat, there is no justification for nuclear weapons, not
morally, not military, not politically. Even in a situation where the security of the
State is at stake, the use of nuclear weapons is out of the question. Due to certain
regulations, weapons and war tactics must be directed to military targets, they must
be proportional and they must not cause unnecessary suffering to the victims. The
use of nuclear weapons would be contradictory to many of those principles.
Ms. Datan, principal co-author of the proposed model Nuclear Weapons Conven-
tion (NWC), explained the advantages of bringing a new judicial framework to the
nuclear disarmament context. According to her, a treaty banning nuclear weapons
and ensuring their elimination would be more likely to succeed than a series of
fragmented, inconsistent approaches to nuclear disarmament. The model NWC
would constitute a complement to the NPT, and “would prohibit the development,
testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons,
as well as the production of fissile material suitable for making them [...]. It would
require all nuclear-armed countries to destroy their nuclear weapons in stages, the
last stage being to place all fissile material under international control to prevent
nuclear weapons ever being made again” (www.icanw.org).
Ambassador Neverov presented a Russian perspective on issues that rose during the
conference, and argued that the world has changed. According to him, what was
logical before, during the cold war, is totally illogical today. For the first time in the
history, achieving a nuclear weapon free world is possible. Ambassador Neverov
emphasized that Russia supports innovative steps, which can lead the process of
disarmament. At the same time, he argued that the process needs to be practical
and realistic.
■
S AT U R DAY
PA N E L D E BAT E
15
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
NUCLEAR WEAPON
STATES – ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
LINNEA LAGERGREN (WILPF)
Chaired by Dr. Ime John (IPPNW), this panel dealt with Article
VI of the NPT, and included representatives from different
Nuclear Weapon States (NWS).
Mr. Jan Lodal (US) focused on the necessity of getting on “the road to zero”, argu-
ing that states would be more prone to adopt policies saying that nuclear weapons
are of no necessity than policies on the illegality to use nuclear weapons. Mr. Lodal
also stressed the need for NWS to, besides reaching an effective control regime,
secure materials and weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. Furthermore,
he said that civil society has to analyse what has to be done to get to zero to be able
to put the pressure where it is needed.
Academician Sergej Kolesnikov (IPPNW) spoke on Russia, underlining that the
Russian public is in strong favour of its nuclear weapons. Therefore, although the
sector of non-profit organisations is growing, and because the government does not
sponsor such organisations, very few of them are working against Russian nuclear
weapons. On Russia’s nuclear weapons possession, Dr. Kolesnikov also spoke on
perceived threats against the country, mentioning NATO enlargement and US mis-
sile defence, and argued that what is needed is dialogue between decision makers.
Dr. Rebecca Johnson (Acronym Institute) spoke on UK efforts, arguing that there
is a growing opposition to Trident replacement. This movement was originally
strongest in Scotland but is now spreading all over the UK, both publicly and
politically, and concerns above all the enormous costs related to Trident replace-
ment. Dr. Johnson welcomed Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s 2008 pledge that
UK should be “at the forefront of the international campaign to accelerate disarma-
ment”. Speaking about civil society efforts, she encouraged all the participants to
work locally on global efforts.
Mr. Dominique Lalanne (Abolition 2000 Europe) spoke about France, saying that
the resistance towards nuclear disarmament in France – being an independent nu-
clear power since 1964 – mainly depends on the fact that nuclear weapons are seen,
often with great pride, as a guarantee for peace and independence and, importantly,
as allowing France to be a significant part of the international forum. What is of
great importance when it comes to France is therefore, according to Mr. Lalanne,
to break free from theories of deterrence.
Q&A session concerned matters such as the role of NATO in relation to Russia and
nuclear disarmament, and the US opposing ratification of the CTBT. Mr. Lodal
emphasized that the disarmament process would not be helped if NATO were to be
dissolved, arguing that focus needs to be elsewhere, while Dr. Kolesnikov claimed
that NATO needs to give up its nuclear sharing principle. He also stressed that
Russia feels dependent on nuclear weapons due to inferiority in conventional arms.
In his summary, Dr. John highlighted the apparent need for mass mobilisation,
and that NGO:s have a great responsibility to progress the agenda before the 2010
RevCon.
■
S AT U R DAY
PA N E L D E BAT E
16
SUSTAINING SECURITY
ON THE ROAD TO ZERO
SEPIDEH NEKOMANESH (WILPF)
In this seminar, speakers Jan Lodal, Igor
Neverov and John Loretz, chaired by Petra
Tötterman Andorff (WILPF), elaborated on
how to reaching zero in a world where de-
terrence is still considered to fulfill security
aims.
Ambassador Neverov spoke about the importance of im-
proved bilateral negotiations between Russia and US, and
argued that changing people’s cold war mentalities is a
critical step. According to him, Russia and the US, be-
ing the two nuclear weapon states with largest nuclear
arsenals, have a responsibility to act as role models and
take a leading position in the global disarmament pro-
cess. However, improvement in the legal framework is
necessary, and Obama has brought hope that this might
become reality.
Mr Lodal, cherished co-author of the Foreign Affairs ar-
ticle The Logic of Zero, agreed with Ambassador Neverov’s
position and emphasized that mentalities need to change
before disarmament policies will be successful. Mr Lodal
also argued that even though some improvements have
been made, a lot needs to be accomplished before zero
is achievable. Both Russia and the US still have policies
contradictory to disarmament, thus national policies
need to be reconsidered before bilateral agreements will
lead to fruitful results.
Mr Loretz represented a critical position and questioned
whether disarmament efforts are serious when nuclear
weapons still are considered to bring security and stability
to the world. In a world where people still “learn to love
the bomb”, and where nuclear umbrellas are considered
to be means of defense, disarmament is far from a reality.
According to Mr Loretz, it is critical to realize that the
use of nuclear weapons is synonymous with mass murder,
and that the human species never would be able to re-
cover after a nuclear war. Therefore, it is not only impor-
tant to discuss policies, but to highlight nuclear weapons
actual consequences on humanity.
■
MOBILIZING PEOPLE
FOR CHANGE
TOVE IVERGÅRD (WILPF)
In this seminar, speakers Peter Weiderud
(Broderskap), Kristin Blom (ITUC/IFS),
Anna Carin Joelsson (SSGI), and chair Jan
Larsson (IPPNW) spoke on how to mobilize
people in campaigns and disarmament
work.
Dr. Larsson introduced the seminar with some wise
words about the importance of reaching out to and en-
gaging people in disarmament, and how to put pressure
on governments. He argued that the first step is to make
sure that everyone understands how devastating nuclear
weapons are.
Peter Weiderud started by presenting the Swedish nuclear
weapons history. During World War II Sweden had the
intention to acquire nuclear weapons. Women’s organiza-
tions were the first to officially oppose this, and people
eventually started to realize that nuclear weapons rather
made Sweden less secure. After the cold war, there was
a strong mobilization built on fear and agony where
people claimed that they needed nuclear weapons for
security. This would create a security dilemma as other
people around them would feel the same in order to be
safe from the ones who already possessed the weapons.
Mr Weiderud also presented a 7 point plan on how to
mobilize towards prohibition and abolishment of nuclear
weapons: to use the small arms agenda as a starting point;
to use the fear about climate change as an example, since
the same fear and urgency can be transferred into the way
people feel about nuclear weapons; to use social media
like Facebook in order to build public opinion; to change
structures and funds; to set specific and realistic goals; to
recognize the enemy, i.e. P5, nuclear weapon states out-
side the NPT, and NATO member states; and to make the
goal reachable and realistic by putting a date.
Kristin Blom presented a short introduction of ITUC/IFS
and said that for many people it might sound strange that
a trade union is working for peace, and that ITUC/IFS
S AT U R DAY S E M I N A R R E P O RT S
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
17
is in a dual position when it comes to nuclear abol-
ishment as they also represent the workers that make
the arms. However, Blom argued that it is important
to work across both political and religious borders.
Ms Blom is convinced that the NPT is a vital instru-
ment on the way towards nuclear abolishment. She also
emphasized that military expenditure could be better
spent on development purposes instead. Regarding
campaigning, Ms Blom argued that it is important to
explain a complicated matter in an easy form. The best
thing is to make it global, to reach out to as many as
possible. In order to make sure that one reach out to
people it is central to not only use the internet as many
people around the world still don’t know how to use it
or don’t have access to a computers or even to electric-
ity. It is also important to use an easy language and to
avoid writing about complicated treaties which people
don’t have any past experience of. People don’t want to
sign what they don’t understand.
Anna Carin Joelsson gave some inspiring words about
what we actually can and will accomplish after this con-
ference. According to her, each single individual can
do something. Ms Joelsson also pinpointed that it is
important that we work together with others, that dif-
ferent cultures live in peace with each other. She also
emphasized the importance of raising awareness on a
grassroots level, and that we need a plan for how to
reach abolishment. According to her, it is especially im-
portant to focus on education, and to target the youth.
The threat of nuclear weapons seems to be so far away
from the youth today, and it is therefore important to
inform them about what happened in the past.
■
NATO, EU AND
NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN
EUROPE
SEPIDEH NEKOMANESH (WILPF)
In this seminar chaired by Stig Gustafsson
(IALANA) speakers Daniel Nord (SIPRI),
Susi Snyder (WILPF), Jens Petersson (UNA
Sweden) and Steffen Kongstad (Norwe-
gian Ministry for Foreign Affairs) focused
on NATO, the EU and Nuclear Weapons in
Europe.
Daniel Nord presented an overview of nuclear weapons
in Europe, and argued that the cold war is an important
reason to NATO’s nuclear weapons doctrine. According
to him, 9/11 also affected the nuclear weapons agenda,
since it brought attention to the risk of nuclear weapons
being in the hands of terrorists.
Susi Snyder emphasized that even though many speak-
ers at this conference talk about the open window for
a nuclear weapons free world, decision makers are not
quite there yet. Therefore, civil society organizations
have a great role to play in the near future. Ms Snyder
also spoke about certain initiatives in Germany, Italy and
Turkey and said that interesting steps are being taken
which need support. She also encouraged the audience
to lobby in their countries and to visit the NATO web-
site http://natostratcon.info/comments/feed/ where it is
possible to comment on the new NATO strategic con-
cept.
Mr Kongstad welcomed that nuclear disarmament is
back on the international agenda, and emphasized the
urgency of the issue among other things because of the
development in Iran, North Korea, and India. According
to him, it is now possible to achieve change. However,
he underlined that deterrence is and will be a part of
the NATO strategy, and that the organization still deeply
believes in nuclear weapons deterrence. Changing this
belief is a political issue, not a military technical one.
According to Mr Petersson, it is necessary to confront
the double standards applied in nuclear weapons discus-
sions. In a situation where strong states keep and even
modernize their nuclear weapons arsenals, it is difficult to
tell other states that they cannot have them. Non nuclear
weapons states need to highlight these issues, as is being
done in for example Germany and the Netherlands.
■
SPACE, MISSILES AND
CONTROL REGIMES
RACHEL ASPÖGÅRD
(SOKA GAKKAI INTERNATIONAL)
In this seminar chaired by Frida Sund-
berg (IPPNW) speakers Regina Hagen
(INESAP) and Agneta Norberg (GN) high-
lighted facts and concerns about missiles,
missile control regimes, and the pending
‘Space Wars’.
According to Regina Hagen, missile defence can be used
as space weaponry. The system to be considered is thus
nuclear warheads, missiles, missile defence and space
weapons. Satellite components are used for war today
by the military. The planning, research, development,
testing and deployment have been taking place since the
S AT U R DAY S E M I N A R R E P O RT S
18
end of WW2. One of the most important developments
was “the Star Wars” speech given by President Reagan
in 1983. He then proposed that a space bound defence
could rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction.
At that time, however, the technology was not achiev-
able and too expensive as well. The scientists refused to
co-operate, claiming that it was unrealistic.
Regina Hagen emphasized that scientists in the civil so-
ciety need to evaluate, calculate the odds and educate
others responsibly – and disown such projects. Even
after the Reagan era and up to this day, the plans for
missile defence continue, under other names and with
other technologies.
Agneta Norberg was concerned about the radar defence
system currently placed all over the world. The northern
contribution, i.e. Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland,
Faro Islands and Denmark, toward the militarization
of space is apparent but often overlooked when ana-
lyzing the US plans for controlling the world through
space. For the US, this area is of importance because
of its close proximity to Russia. According to Agneta
Norberg, Sweden has a large space technology indus-
try, playing an important role in the European Space
Agency, ESA. In 2005, a governmental report from the
Swedish Department of Industry argued for an increase
in space technology for aviation and space industry. The
report states that expanding in this field shall be one of
the driving forces for Sweden ́s economic growth and
position as a high technology state.
Both speakers agreed to the urgency for civil society to
get more involved in refuting the status quo regarding
space conflict, missiles and the influence of control re-
gimes. Regina Hagen stressed the importance of having
more experts in the scientific field more active so that
civil society has an opportunity to be better informed.
Civil society needs to get equipped to explain this is-
sue to the law makers, to the parliamentarians and also
foreign ministries; they often do not understand what
is at stake. We also need a Nuclear Weapons Conven-
tion which would also include a ban on ballistic mis-
siles that could be used to deploy nuclear weapons. And
what is even more vital is moving towards a stop to war
taking place in space.
■
ENERGY DEMANDS AND
CLIMATE CHANGE:
A ROLE FOR NUCLEAR
ENERGY?
ELIN HEDKVIST AND SORAYA JABER (WILPF)
This seminar, chaired by Professor Gun-
nar Westberg, and featuring Pugwash’ Ulf
Svensson and Professor Henning Rodhe,
focused on nuclear energy, nuclear weap-
ons, and climate change.
Professor Gunnar Westberg opened the seminar by
speaking about the climate consequences of a nucle-
ar war. According to him, even a minor nuclear war
would have severe consequences on the environment
for future generations to come.
Professor Rodhe argued that the two great threats of the
world today are nuclear war and climate change. These
two threats are connected as well as share features. They
are both global and therefore require action from the
international community. Their difference lies in the
time aspect; while climate change is a long term prob-
lem, a nuclear war would be a sudden disaster. The con-
nection is that climate change causes conflicts, which
increases the risk of a nuclear war. On the other hand,
a nuclear war, even a small one, would cause effects on
the climate. Furthermore, a nuclear war would cause
ozone depletion which would make it dangerous for
humans to be outdoors because of the UV radiation.
Mr Svensson presented the Swedish nuclear energy pro-
gram and argued that it was not profitable to initiate it,
and that the plutonium from the program was actually
planned to be used in a Swedish nuclear bomb. Having
said that, he stresses that there is a clear link between
nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Mr Svensson also
argued that on the positive side, green energy is devel-
oping and climate change and global warming are now
for the first time high politics. On the down side is the
focus on building nuclear power plants, and a milita-
rization of nuclear energy. Instead, there should be a
clear link between demilitarization and nuclear energy.
The seminar was rounded up by Professor Westberg
who also emphasized the history of the nuclear winter
theory and the criticism it has received. As a response
to the criticism new research has found that a nuclear
winter would be even worse than what was expected in
the 1980s, a global famine would occur, but no one can
yet know the exact impact on food and crops.
■
S AT U R DAY S E M I N A R R E P O RT S
19
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
THE MIDDLE EAST –
SUGGESTIONS FOR
REACHING A SECURE
AND PEACEFUL REGION
THOMAS SILFVERBERG (IPPNW)
In this seminar, speakers Jan Prawitz (Em),
Merav Datan (Board Member LCNP) and
Ambassador Mohamed Shaker, chaired by
International Co-President of WILPF Kerstin
Grebäck, elaborated on the prospect of
reaching a secure and peaceful region in
the Middle East.
Mrs Grebäck introduced the seminar and said that solv-
ing the nuclear problem in the Middle East is one of the
key questions to strengthen the NPT. Mr Prawitz argued
that the solution is to establish a Nuclear Weapon Free
Zone (NWFZ). The UN has recommended this sugges-
tion each year since 1974, and an expert group worked
out suggestions for the establishment of such a zone. This
suggestion was adopted by a consensus decision by the
UN General Assembly in late 1990, involving 23 coun-
tries in the region. These countries are bound to many
WMD treaties already; the NPT (except for Israel), the
Geneva protocol for Chemical Weapons and 13 countries
in the region have ratified the CTBT. Thus many states
have already committed themselves to paragraphs that
would be included in a Middle Eastern NWFZ. What’s
more; 74% of all land outside the nuclear weapon states
(NWS) are now part of NWFZ and these countries in-
cludes 1.9 billion people. However, there are some obsta-
cles, including the Israeli governments rejection to com-
ment on national nuclear weapons issues, the future of
Iran’s civil nuclear program, a century old law that NWS
can enter the region deeply by sea with ships and subma-
rines, and NATO NWs in Turkey since the 1960’s.
Ms Datan argued it is Israel’s opinion that a Middle East
free from weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) is only
possible after long-lasting peace and stability has come to
the region. The other countries in the region believe that
for peace and stability to be possible all the WMDs have
to be withdrawn from the region. As a conclusion these
issues need to be discussed simultaneously. An important
political step for the regional road towards disarmament
is the Arab Peace Initiative – where the Arab states have
guaranteed Israel normalization of diplomatic relations if
Israel abolish their WMDs. Israel is the only country in
the world that has not ratified a single one of the disar-
mament treaties. This is not covered in the Israeli news
and is met by surprise by many Israelis because it simply
does not sound very good for Israel. Iran is considered in
the media as an immediate threat to national security. It
is basically only women’s peace groups and the younger
generation (mostly in student groups) who are willing to
talk about these issues.
Ambassador Shaker emphasized that the expert report on
how to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East that was
met by a consensus decision in the UN is still valid. Fur-
thermore, Israel is the only country in the region which
has not ratified the NPT, which has prompted other
countries in the region to acquiring NWs. Libya had a
NWs program, but gave it up unilaterally. Syria is a new
case where the IAEA is still investigating the matter. Iran
has been a source of worries in the UN, IAEA and the re-
gion and will continue to be for still many years to come.
According to Amb Shaker, one of the most important
issues for the 2010 NPT RevCon is the establishment of
a NWFZ in the Middle East. However, the US, Russia
and the UK have not implemented their responsibilities
under the 1995 resolution on the Middle East, which
would be needed for adopting a NWFZ in the Middle
East. Egypt is calling for an international conference to
discuss the NWFZ, and also has a suggestion to have a
commissionaire to be responsible to push this idea for-
ward and work for its establishment.
■
S AT U R DAY S E M I N A R R E P O RT S
20
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
REACHING CRITICAL WILL
FOR DISARMAMENT
RACHEL ASPÖGÅRD (SOKA GAKKAI INTERNATIONAL)
This panel, chaired by John Loretz (IPPNW), included speak-
ers Ray Acheson (RCW), Maj Britt Theorin (Ambassador),
Peter Weiderud (Broderskap) and Kristin Blom (ITUC/FS).
Before the panel discussion started, Nina Eisenhardt of Ban all Nukes Generation
gave a speech on behalf of the youth delegation to the conference. Ms Eisenhardt
explained that ”we were asked to look at what we like the best in life. Most answers
to this question regarded friends, family, security and peace. Since we are the ones
that will inherit the global threats and military expenditure, we would like to ask
all the participants on the coming RevCon, to look at what they like best in life.
We really hope that they will come up with the same answers as we do. But if this
is not the case, then it is high time to make room for us, the next generation, at the
negotiation table.”
John Loretz introduced the panel to discuss the “next steps of organising and cam-
paigning”. According to him, going on from the review is important, recalling Re-
becca Johnson’s determination for local and global demonstrations a week after the
RevCon. Amb. Theorin followed on and talked about her own experiences as an ac-
tivist. In her opinion, the USA has a strong responsibility to take the lead in nuclear
disarmament –“Obama has to go from words to deeds, from the NPT conference
in 2010, we will see if he will pass the test.” She also emphasized that pressure needs
to be on our own governments and politicians and we need to co-operate and be
prepared for the NPT RevCon. Peter Weiderud felt it a great step forward that the
Swedish Network for Nuclear Disarmament has arranged this conference. Moving
on to speak about specific regions and countries, Mr Weiderud called for coopera-
tion between non nuclear weapons states (NNWS), and for the countries who are
not parties to the NPT to immediately re-think their positions. He also emphasized
that a good call of action is to remind the five nuclear weapon states (NWS) about
their obligations according to Article VI of the NPT. Kristin Blom spoke about how
the trade union movements can do their part. According to her, governments need
to listen to Trade Unions and that they want to see a massive reduction in arms ex-
penditure - Nuclear Weapons being a key part to this. Ms Blom emphasized that as
we move toward Nuclear Disarmament, and to cut arms expenditure, we also need
to make sure that the transition to the peaceful and social use of nuclear production
is just and fair to those working in these areas. Ray Acheson outlined recommen-
dations for the RevCon and emphasized that “we need education campaigns for
people in the streets, for politicians and the decision makers equally, we need direct
actions, we need protests, and we need co-ordinated visibility, we need to be engaged
with parliamentarians, mayors, and other elected individuals.” Ms Acheson espe-
cially argued for the importance of reducing the role of nuclear weapons in security
doctrines – the value of nuclear weapons has to be diminished. According to her,
“the best way for Civil Society to advocate for this, is to dismantle and dissect the
traditional national Security discourse – Nina [Eisenhardt BANg] has mentioned
this, and this is something the youth are thinking about and it is very important
that they do.” With key legislators all over the world joining the call for nuclear
disarmament, civil society needs to draw attention to and support these actions. Ms
Acheson also criticized the modernising of nuclear weapons, something civil society
needs to strongly advocate against. Ms Acheson also emphasized the commitment
to a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and argued that more governments than ever
before are now making reference to the NWC. According to her, now is the time to
educate, engage, lobby, and demonstrate.
Chairman John Loretz summed up the panel stating that “the modernisation of
nuclear weapons is a priority at the NPT review, exposing the inconsistence between
rhetoric about nuclear weapons and the policies that sustain them is crucial. To look
beyond the NPT to a Nuclear Weapons Convention, as well as encourage states and
governments, and debate the convention bringing it into their working papers.”
■
S U N DAY PA N E L D E BAT E
21
TRIGGERING
NEGOTIATIONS
FOR ABOLITION
Tim Wright is an Aus-
tralian board member
of the International
Campaign to Abolish
Nuclear Weapons. He
will be working for the
campaign in New York
from February with
the task of promoting
the nuclear weapons
convention before, dur-
ing and after the NPT
Review Conference.
More than a thousand NGO representa-
tives are expected to descend on New
York in May for the five-yearly review of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Hopes are running
high following pronouncements
in recent years by high-level
military and political figures that
nuclear weapons do not have
the same utility as they did back
in the Cold War days. Presi-
dent Obama’s much-publicized
speech in Prague last April has
also fuelled the enthusiasm. But
will the conference provide us
the results we are looking for?
It was clear from the Stockholm gather-
ing of NGOs last November that civil
society is firmly committed to abolition,
not merely a reduction in global nuclear
forces. There is also widespread support
for the idea that the best way to achieve a
world without nuclear weapons is through
a comprehensive, verifiable convention,
where all nuclear-armed states agree on a timetable to do
away with their nuclear weapons, and the world achieves
more effective controls to prevent break-out, nuclear in-
security and the further spread of nuclear weapons. Could
next year’s NPT review conference be the ‘trigger’ to start
negotiating such a treaty?
An obvious sticking point is the current lack of support
from the nuclear-weapon states. Also, four of the nine
nuclear-armed states — Israel, India, Pakistan and North
Korea — will be absent from the meeting. Since there is
a diminishing chance of these states acceding to the NPT
as non-nuclear-weapon states, that is a further reason why
a nuclear weapons convention is needed. The limitations
of the NPT review process are obvious, and the regime
can only be effectively strengthened and universalised
through multilateral negotiations on a comprehensive
treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons for all.
While engaging with current efforts to strengthen non-
proliferation and security, it is now necessary to look be-
yond the NPT. The International Campaign to Abolish
Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will be working in the months
leading up to the May conference to increase the number
of countries that call for a nuclear weapons convention in
their official statements — and not as a far-off goal, but as
an immediate necessity. This will involve the engagement
of NGOs everywhere. Already, groups in many countries
have begun to contact their governments to persuade
them to promote an NWC.
In recent years, civil society has made headway in win-
ning the moral and security arguments for achieving a
nuclear-weapon-free world. Now we must focus squarely
on persuading governments to consider the ‘when’ and
‘how’ of abolition. We must challenge nations which in-
sist on looking at proliferation concerns to the exclusion
of disarmament, or talk about reducing arsenals instead of
eliminating them: they are preventing meaningful prog-
ress. It is time for all countries, whether nuclear-armed or
not, to begin exploring the legal, technical and political
requirements for abolition.
The aim in the run-up to the 2010 Review Conference
should be to build up an accumulation of proposals from
states expressing a need for some kind of comprehensive
agreement to abolish all nuclear weapons by an agreed
target date. Some countries may be resistant to the model
NWC because it is seen as an NGO or Non-Aligned
Movement initiative. But they should not be allowed to
hide behind that as an excuse for not considering and ad-
vancing the concept of a comprehensive abolition treaty
of some description.
The first step in implementing this strategy should be for
NGOs in as many countries as possible to arrange meet-
ings with foreign ministry officials, and to begin a dia-
logue about the importance of putting a nuclear weapons
TIM WRIGHT | INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO ABOLISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
22
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
convention on the agenda. In Australia, for example, a
formal roundtable meeting will be held with government
and representatives from roughly 20 NGOs in advance of
the NPT Review Conference. But our purview need not
be limited government officials. Working with elected
representatives from all parties, including mayors, could
prove fruitful. The more people publicly backing the idea
of an abolition treaty, the harder it will be for decision
makers to ignore.
We can also assist other NGOs in our region to advance
the idea of a nuclear weapons convention with their gov-
ernments. It is likely, for example, that the hundred or so
NPT parties in the Non-Aligned Movement would sup-
port our call, but little effort has been made to encourage
them to include language about an NWC in their official
statements. Working together across borders, and engag-
ing new groups in this process, will be vital if we are to
succeed.
While this strategy is not about promoting a particu-
lar model of a nuclear weapons convention, the model
NWC developed by civil society and submitted to the
UN in 2007 by Costa Rica and Malaysia can be a use-
ful tool. Securing Our Survival, which incorporates the
model convention, is full of ideas and arguments for what
needs to be done.
However, some states may be more amenable to the sug-
gestion that they support the five-point plan for nuclear
disarmament put forward by UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon in October 2008, which calls for consideration
of a nuclear weapons convention or something similar.
With diplomatic endorsement from the
highest level, this demonstrates that the idea
of an NWC can no longer be dismissed as a
far-off fantasy. In fact, pursuing a compre-
hensive treaty is perhaps the only realistic
way to avert nuclear catastrophe.
Whatever the outcome of the NPT Review
Conference, our efforts must not end there. In fact, it
must mark just the beginning of a renewed civil society
push to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons once and
for all. This is why a large number of NGOs across the
world have begun planning demonstrations for June 5,
the Saturday after the close of the NPT conference. Our
demonstrations will be local, but our call for a nuclear
weapons convention will be global, with messages tai-
lored to build on, or parachute over, the NPT outcome
— depending on whether it is positive or negative.
The rallies can be organized at key government buildings
or, for the nuclear-armed countries, at nuclear weapons
facilities. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Cam-
paign for Nuclear Disarmament is planning events in
London, Aldermaston and Faslane, Scotland. The focus
and nature of the demonstrations is up to local groups,
consistent with non-violence principles.
ICAN will be responsible for hosting the action website
and working with local NGOs around the world to de-
velop and promote a strong, inspiring and unified mes-
sage in response to the NPT Review Conference. If it
ends in failure with no or limited agreement, then the
need for a new approach will only be more apparent. If it
is deemed successful, then our protests will help to build
on the momentum.
As the UN high representative for disarmament affairs,
Sergio Duarte, said at the Stockholm conference last year,
it is time ‘to democratize disarmament’. People across the
globe must take control of the process, and demand that
these anti-democratic, inhuman weapons be dispensed
with. In the lead-up to the NPT review and beyond, we
must work together to make nuclear weapons abolition
a reality — not at some indefinite point in the distant
future, but in time for all of us to reap the rewards. ■
“Whatever the outcome of the
NPT Review Conference, our
efforts must not end there”
23
CIVIL SOCIETY
STRATEGIES AND
PRIORITIES FOR
THE NPT REVCON
SORAYA JABER AND ELIN HEDKVIST (WILPF)
This seminar, chaired by Håkan Mårtens-
son (Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation),
included speakers Susi Snyder (WILPF),
Regina Hagen (INESAP), and Thomas
Magnusson (IPB), and focused on civil
society strategies and priorities for the NPT
RevCon.
Håkan Mårtensson introduced the participants and the
topic for the seminar and asked the panel what civil so-
ciety can do in relation to the NPT RevCon and if it is
possible to agree on a prioritized agenda.
Thomas Magnusson emphasized that there is a dialogue
between enemies and its counterparts, and that behind
the dialogue there is a power struggle between states such
as the United States and Iran. According to him, the ques-
tion we have to ask is; what have we done to promote the
dialogue? He also mentioned that there are other issues
than the NPT RevCon to focus on, such as long-term
peace building, global warming and global hunger.
Regina Hagen took the opportunity to introduce the
Nuclear Weapon Convention NWC which was drafted
in response to the International Court of Justice ICJ rul-
ing from 1996. She argued that we need to know how to
achieve the goal of a NWC, how we want to get there and
also emphasized the importance of having a good plan for
getting there. Metaphorically she compared the task of
accomplishing a NWC with the climbing of a mountain
- it is not enough to know that you want to get to the
top; you need to plan every single step. Mrs Hagen also
underlined the importance of participating in the Rev-
Con, since it helps civil society to focus on activities, to
cooperate and to work towards specific aims.
Susi Snyder emphasized the responsibilities of civil so-
ciety organizations and all humans in the disarmament
work. According to her, civil society’s main tasks are to
educate, activate and advocate. Reaching Critical Will,
a project of Women’s International League for Peace and
Freedom, keeps all statements and working papers from
earlier years and functions as the collective memory of
the RevCon, thus educates by keeping and distributing
all data. This is important since it is difficult for those not
taking part in the meeting to take part of the information.
The activation phase is all about getting people excited.
By focusing on international days of action, like the UN
day, the World Peace Day, International Women’s Day
for Disarmament etcetera, it is possible to engage people
in, and visualise, the importance of disarmament work.
According to Ms Snyder, the first two steps, education
and activation, are crucial in order to be able to advocate.
When it comes to advocacy, it is of great importance that
civil society is well informed and gives correct informa-
tion.
■
RAISING PUBLIC
OPINION – EDUCATION,
MEDIA AND GRASSROOT
ACTIVITY
SEPIDEH NEKOMANESH (WILPF)
In this seminar, chair Ingrid Inglander and
speakers Inger Holmlund, Tim Wright, Hans
Levander and Masako Ikegami spoke on
how to raise public opinion by focusing on
education, media and grassroot activism.
Inger Holmlund, founder of the Relay Campaign Bud-
kavlen, a Swedish initiative aiming to put pressure on
local politicians and the public in cities, argued that it
is up to everybody to do their part in influencing govern-
ments to change policies. This campaign runs through
every community of Sweden, involving representatives of
the local governments, press, trade unions, schools and
civil society organizations in a public meeting, sometimes
followed by seminars or workshops, the first Saturday ev-
ery month at 11.55. By reaching Stockholm it has now
passed the middle of our long country - and goes on.
Tim Wright of the International Campaign to Abolish
Nuclear Weapons ICAN emphasized the age gap in the
disarmament movement and argued that an informed,
outraged, active public is necessary in order to put politi -
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
S U N DAY
S E M I N A R R E P O RT S
24
cal pressure which leads to political action. ICAN aims
at generating a groundswell of popular support for ab-
olition - as have landmines, chemical and biological
weapons already been outlawed - by distributing short
but very clear information material, with suggestions
for practical action to influence our political leaders.
Hans Levander, founder of the Life Link Programme
pointed to the necessity of influencing politicians in
order to have disarmament education entered into the
school system. A security paradigm shift is evolving,
where the old security paradigm focusing on technical
confrontation, weapons warfare, secrecy and unlimited
resources is being replaced by a new security paradigm
rooted in human communication, transparency, citi-
zen diplomacy and sustainability. Education on this,
on all levels, is a most important tool to reach abo-
lition. By focusing on this, LifeLink has managed to
involve a great number of countries around the world,
including Iran.
Masako Ikegami of Pugwash emphasized the myths of
nuclear weapons and what the media does not report
on. According to her, one of the most critical myths is
that nuclear weapons only are for deterrence, not for
use. This myth darkens that nuclear weapons in fact
are weapons of mass destruction, and the use of them
leading to mass murder. After Hiroshima a lid was put
on medias ́ reports on the effects of the bomb. The
“secret” Chinese tests in Uiguria are recent examples
of media silence.
In sum, cooperation between organizations like May-
ors for Peace, ICAN, LifeLink, Educators for Peace,
ITUC, Sokka Gakai and others - as well as with media
and governments, is of vital importance for reaching
nuclear disarmament and abolition.
■
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND REMAINING TASKS –
LESSONS FROM THE
NPT’S 13 STEPS AND THE
BLIX COMMISSON
LINNEA LAGERGREN (WILPF)
Focusing on the NPT’s 13 Practical Steps
and on the WMD Commission (WMDC) Re-
port, this seminar was chaired by Ambas-
sador Maj Britt Theorin and featured Am-
bassador Henrik Salander of MPI, Ms Ray
Acheson of Reaching Critical Will, and Dr
Rebecca Johnson, co-founder of Acronym
Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy.
Mr. Henrik Salander briefly summarised the 13 steps,
underlining that they were negotiated with the five
Nuclear Weapon States (NWS), and that according to
the Steps, nuclear disarmament must progress before
general disarmament can be achieved. While the UN
General Assembly has reconfirmed the 13 steps, which
in reality are 18 steps due to sub steps, Amb. Salander
pointed to the lack of progress in 11 of them. There-
fore, the agreements should be reformulated in 2010.
What should be learned from the Commission is the
need to include not only the five NWS, but also the
other states that possess nuclear weapons.
Ms. Ray Acheson presented a critical analysis of the 13
steps and argued that although being important, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty cannot be held up as
a required step for disarmament. She also called for a
Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC), and underlined
that the Conference on Disarmament (CD) is inap-
propriate as a subsidiary body on nuclear disarmament
due to its long lasting stalemate. Ms. Acheson also pre-
sented comments on the WMDC report. According to
her, the policy on no first use is problematic since it im-
plicitly rationalise the second use of nuclear weapons.
She also questioned the CD consensus being a problem
per se, claiming the system is rather being used, and
that progress is not possible until consensus once again
means compromise. Furthermore, Ms. Acheson linked
the nuclear fuel cycle problems to the failure of disar-
mament initiatives and called for less reliance on nucle-
ar power. She also underlined the relevance of gender to
the science and politics of WMD.
Dr. Rebecca Johnson spoke about strategies and tactics,
arguing that the NPT regime is flawed and of declining
utility, why disarmament cannot become hostage to the
NPT’s processes. While emphasising that the 2010 NPT
RevCon must adopt better tools to implement nuclear
disarmament, and not just another “to do” list, Dr.
Johnson called for the recognition of the use of nuclear
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
S U N DAY
S E M I N A R R E P O RT S
25
weapons as a crime against humanity. She also stressed
the need for civil society to start working on governments
to get the call for a NWC into the opening statements
and working papers to the 2010 RevCon. Dr. Johnson
concluded by calling on everyone to demonstrate locally
as part of ICAN’s global campaign for a NWC.
The Q&A session concerned matters such as the role
of the EU, how the NWS permanent memberships to
the Security Council affect the road to zero, and Israel’s
nuclear weapons. Amb. Salander argued that EU is being
held back in its statements by France and the UK. Dr.
Johnson added that the best way to influence the EU is
to try to reach out to its parliamentarians. Amb. Salander
also stressed that the non-NWS will not allow P5 alone
to decide on compliance, while Amb. Corell from the au-
dience claimed that the P5 have to start using their veto
only when it is in their uttermost concern. Regarding Is-
rael, Mr. Salander underlined that this matter cannot be
solved through the NPT, why a NWC, including India,
Israel and Pakistan, is important to achieve. Ms. Acheson
emphasized the importance for governments to stop ap-
plying double standards regarding Iran and Israel.
■
THE NEW GENERATION -
ACHIEVING NUCLEAR
DISARMAMENT IN THE
21ST CENTURY
TOVE IVERGÅRD (WILPF)
In this seminar, speakers Anissa Abouza-
ki (WILPF), Sandra Fong (WILPF), Ehase
Agyeno (IPPNW), Nina Eisenhardt (BANg),
Katharina Bergmann (IPPNW), Kai Hagen
(Friedenswerkstatt Mutlangen) and chair
Anna Ek (Swedish Peace and Arbitra¬tion
Society) spoke on the role of the youth in
reaching progress on the nuclear disarma-
ment agenda.
Anissa Abouzaki gave a broad introduction of the nu-
clear situation in the Middle East and the history be-
hind it. She mentioned how Lebanon has a hard time
to become a developed state due to the US strict con-
trol over the country. She also described the situation
in Iran and its relation with the US. She also brought
up the discussion about whether Iran’s nuclear program
is for a peaceful use, and mentioned that Israel is said
to be the only nuclear weapon state in the Middle East.
Ms Abouzaki strongly argued that direct diplomacy is
needed in Iran. She also emphasized the importance of
Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace
and Security. She finished of by talking about civil so-
ciety’s role and how important it is that they lobby to-
wards the Security Council for a nuclear free Middle
East.
Sandra Fong explained that people often have a false
picture of the pacific region; they see it only as a beauti-
ful paradise where possibly no nuclear problem could
occur or exist. According to her, people have forgotten
about the history of the long period of nuclear testing
which took place in the pacific. 300 soldiers from Fiji
took part in these testing’s, and a lot of people in the
pacific have been displaced due to the testing’s. Howev-
er, people started to mobilize for a nuclear free pacific,
and it was a radical movement for nuclear disarmament
and youth collaboration. In 1975 the pacific became a
nuclear free zone. Even though, today there is a lack
of education and it is hard to engage young people in
the movement against nuclear weapons. The only ones
that are active today are the ones that were there during
the testing’s. Still, the islands where the testing’s took
place still suffer from the effects. Ms Fong believes that
the people of the pacific need to be educated on these
issues, as everyone seem to believe that it won’t affect
them individually.
Ehase Agyeno spoke on the importance of engaging
young people in the work towards nuclear disarma-
ment. According to him, the nuclear question is no
longer sexy as it used to be during the 80’s, and it is
losing media coverage. The Nuclear Weapon Inheri-
tance Project on IPPNW is a project aiming to engage
and empower the young generation. Katharina Berg-
mann continued to explain a bit more about how the
Nuclear Weapon Inheritance Project works. She posed
the question; do you want to inherent the nuclear
weapons from your father and mother, and give it to
your children? According to her, if you are informed
you can take action, and put pressure on politicians
and work with NGOs. However, how can the youth
take part in this process? Ms Bergmann urged for a
dialogue with students around the world; for the need
of organizing workshops to learn dialogue techniques
and conflict resolution; for enabling young people
P H O T O : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
S U N DAY
S E M I N A R R E P O RT S
26
to be active and to produce material and information; for the impor-
tance of taking part in dialogues with decision makers; for contact and
dialogue between students from different perspectives; for using media
as a tool to make nuclear disarmament sexy again; and for the need of
funds and sponsorship programmes that can enable students to partici-
pate in different meetings etcetera.
Kai Hagen started his speech by taking up the dual position of many
European countries. For example Germany, which is a non nuclear
weapon state, still has 20 nuclear warheads in the country. He also said
that there are some countries that have signed the NPT but still are
members of NATO who posses their own Nuclear Weapons. Mr Ha-
gen believes that it is important to mobilize young people to spread
information during the NPT RevCon 2010. If young people from all
over the world come to New York and start real negotiations they will
realize how hard it is to reach an agreement on an international level.
He also strongly argued for a flow of information as we won’t reduce
the problem until someone tells us about it. One way is to engage youth
on action trips.
Nina Eisenhardt of Ban All Nukes generation explained the main pil-
lars of BANg; it constitutes an open network which is easy to join;
it is self organized with many different programmes, all projects are
self-organized; it is aiming to help young people to stabilize their proj-
ects. Their overall work is focused on bringing young people together
to share ideas on peace and disarmament; to inform people about the
threat of nuclear weapons and the urgency of disarmament; to promote
non-violent action for a more peaceful world; to support and strengthen
existing campaigns against nuclear weapons by organising international
youth participation; and to organize actions to increase the pressure for
disarmament. According to Ms Eisenhardt, information can be spread
by street actions, demonstrations, non-proliferation and disarmament
education, DVDs, and posters. She also emphasized that young people
do care because they know what is going on, even if it is often claimed
that the youth is lacking in the disarmament movement.
■
P H O T O : G A B R I E L H O L M B O M
S U N DAY
S E M I N A R R E P O RT S
27
Mobilizing the
Next Generation
for Nuclear
Disarmament
PIA J OHANSSON (WILPF Sweden)
Nuclear disarmament negotiations have traditionally
been, and still are, characterized by a lack of young peo-
ple’s representation. Thus, young people’s perspectives
are often trivialized or ignored. Furthermore, if young
people are not included in disarmament they will miss
out on important information. Therefore, young people’s
perspectives must be taken into consideration, and their
voices must be heard.
In recognition of the importance of young people’s per-
spectives, a workshop with the aim to mobilize the next
generation for nuclear disarmament, funded by the Olof
Palme Memorial Foundation, was held before the con-
ference had officially started. The workshop served as a
meeting point for young conference participants from all
over the world, to exchange experience and ideas about
working for nuclear weapons abolition. About 40 partici-
pants engaged in discussions focusing on priorities for the
upcoming NPT Review Conference.
One of the most important points agreed upon during
the workshop was the urgency of awareness raising. Even
in a time of mass information and communication tech-
nology we see a lack of knowledge about nuclear weapons
and their consequences. It is not acceptable that millions
of children leave their schools without education on these
issues. The danger of nuclear wars should no longer stay a
non-issue in education, but should be raised as one of the
most important security problems of our time.
With only one globe to guard there is no other option
than to cooperate across the borders. Therefore the im-
portance of promoting dialogue between youth around
was stressed during the workshop. To prevent dehuman-
ization and demonization as a result of the constant on-
going war propaganda, viable networks built on mutual
trust and understanding are essential. Since the youth is
the future, they must be mobilized and engaged in or-
der to foster a climate of equality and sustainable peace.
A fruitful dialogue is therefore not something only con-
cerning governments or experts, but also concerns youths
from the civil society.
Finally there is always a need to raise the question of secu-
rity for whom, when governments stress the importance
of nuclear weapons in maintaining global security. Will
these weapons actually provide peace and security? Will
ordinary people actually be safe and secure in a world
based on deterrence? The conclusion is clearly no. There
is a huge difference between military security and human
security and this must be recognized.
ANASTASIA M EDVEDEVA (IPPNW Russia)
The most important thing for all of us is nuclear disarma-
ment. The organization of the meeting was on a very high
level, and it was a good opportunity to meet participants
from all over the world, and from different parties and
organizations; from Fiji, Nigeria, India, Nepal, Pakistan,
Lebanon, Georgia, Iran, EU countries, US, Russia and
other countries.
The youth movement represented was very strong; all
participants were very enthusiastic and encouraged by
the results of this great meeting. There were several stories
shared by the youth participants, who work hard in the
field of nuclear disarmament in their own countries. For
example they make different posters, organize meetings,
and street actions to make people all over the world and
in different societies aware about the problem of nuclear
weapons.
We had the possibility to listen to people telling the real
story from their country, for example Iran, India, Nepal,
Fiji, and Lebanon. These countries have their own cul-
ture, a bit different from one another. It is very useful
to know in what way they play their role in the process
of nuclear disarmament, and we can all learn and share
knowledge. By having contact with one another, we will
be able to create a strong movement in the future. All the
participants had the opportunity to play their role in the
discussions on different topics. Having this great knowl-
edge we will all play our individual and important role in
nuclear disarmament.
ILSE WERMINK (WILPF Switzerland)
Nuclear disarmament is unfortunately not a hot topic for
youth. The Palme Conference showed otherwise for those
committed. It has helped to build up contacts among
youth engaged in banning nukes and inform each other
on projects they are involved in. It was good that the
Palme Conference took place prior to the NGO Con-
ference, to allow youth to reconnect and discuss ideas
during the whole weekend. In discussing the NPT Re-
view Conference in smaller groups there was a significant
difference in background knowledge. There is a need for
youth leaders to increase awareness and engage youth
with the topic.
NINA E ISENHARDT (BANg, Germany)
It was very motivating to meet with young people from all
over the world who are interested in the topic of nuclear
disarmament. We developed good ideas for cooperation
towards the NPT conference in New York 2010. To see
that we have common goals and a common message we
can send out was very important: Our generation has not
experienced the cold war. For us the military strategy of
28
This Conference was arranged by:
THE SWEDISH NETWORK
FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT:
Broderskapsrörelsen
Dentists against Nuclear Weapons
Educators for Peace Sweden
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Sweden
Nurses, Physiotherapists and Analysts against Nuclear Weapons
Psychologists against Nuclear Weapons
Scientists and Engineers against Nuclear Weapons
Soka Gakkai International, Swedish Section
Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation
Swedish Lawyers against Nuclear Weapons
Swedish Peace Committee
Swedish Women’s Left Federation
The Swedish Anti-nuclear Movement
Women for Peace
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Swedish Section
Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (associated member)
The Olof Palme International Center (associated member)
In cooperation with:
ABF Stockholm
International Peace Bureau
Pugwash Sweden
United Nations Association of Sweden
Conference Organizing Committee:
Bo Wirmark (Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation), Curt Riberdahl (Swedish Lawyers against
Nuclear Weapons), Emma Rosengren (Conference Coordinator, WILPF Sweden), Gunnar Las-
sinantti (The Olof Palme International Center), Ingrid Inglander (Educators for Peace Sweden),
Leonore Wide (IPPNW Sweden), Meit Krakau (IPPNW Sweden), Stig Gustafsson (Swedish
Lawyers against Nuclear Weapons)
Contact:
www.nucleardisarmament.se - info@nucleardisarmament.se
deterrence is not logical or understandable and nuclear
weapons are a useless relict we will not accept as our heri-
tage.
SHANTA K UMAR S HRESTHA (IPPNW Nepal)
Being one of the 14 participants sponsored by Olof Palme
Foundation, it is a great honor to witness and discuss what
the world fora are currently doing for the Disarmament
of Nuclear Weapons. It is an opportunity to get close per-
spective of the peace builders, to learn how things work
in this field.
The workshop focused on Youth was a brain storming ses-
sion which collaborated ideas, facts and possibilities from
young minds around the globe and the recommendations
presented before the main conference were worthwhile.
I had expected to get a better understanding of the cur-
rent scenario of the Nuclear Disarmament and I got a lot
more than what I had in my mind. The things discussed
by the panels and the feedback from the participants elu-
cidated many many details of the global context of Nu-
clear Weapons.
There are lots of challenges ahead in the pathway to a
world free of Nuclear Weapons but I am sure the world is
changing for good and we can be optimist of our future.
The combined effort of old and new generation, the be-
lief of co-existence, tolerance and mutual respect and the
vigorous globalization of world will further diminish the
need of any Weapons and we can expect a safer world in
near future.
I am thankful to the Olof Palme Memorial Fund, the or-
ganizers, the experts and all the participants as well as my
friends for making this conference a memorable one.
■
29
APPENDIX LIST OF SPEAKERS
AGNETA NORBERG (SE): Board Member, Global Network against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
AMI LÖNNROTH (SE): Journalist and Author
ANISSA ABOU SAKI (LB): International Board Member Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) Lebanon
ANASTASIA MEDVEDEVA (RU): International Physicians for the Prevention of Nulear War (IPPNW) Russia, participant in the Palme Project
ANNA EK (SE): Chairperson of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society
ANNA CARIN JOELSSON (SE): Soka Gakkai International Swedish Section
CHRISTER AHLSTRÖM (SE): Deputy Director-General, Head of Department for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation,
Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs
DANIEL NORD (SE): Deputy Director Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI
DOMINIqUE LALANNE (FR): Abolition 2000 Europe
EHASE AGYENO (NE): International Student Representative IPPNW
ELENA BEZSMERTNA (UA): IPPNW Ukraine, participant in the Palme Project
FRIDA SUNDBERG (SE): Vice President, Swedish Section of IPPNW
GUNNAR WESTBERG (SE): Former president of IPPNW
HANS BLIX (SE): Chairperson Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission WMDC
HANS CORELL (SE): Ambassador, Former Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations
HANS LEVANDER (SE): Chairperson and Founder of the Life-Link Friendship-Schools Programme
HENNING RODHE (SE): Professor emeritus of Chemical Meteorology, Director of the International Meteorological Institute
HENRIK SALANDER (SE): Chairperson Middle Powers Initiative (MPI)
HÅKAN MÅRTENSSON (SE): Secretary General Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation
IGOR S. NEVEROV (RU): Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Sweden
ILSE WERMINK (NL): WILPF Switzerland, participant in the Palme Project
IME JOHN (SE): Co-president IPPNW
INGER HOLMLUND (SE): Founder of Budkavlen
INGRID INGLANDER (SE): MA, Educators for Peace
JAN LARSSON (SE): President Swedish Section of IPPNW
JAN LODAL (US): Former President of the Atlantic Council of the United States
JAN PRAWITZ (SE): Researcher (EM) Swedish Institute of International Affairs,
Former Special Assistant for Arms Control to Sweden’s Minister of Defense
JOHN LORETZ (US): Program Director IPPNW
JOSEFINE KARLSSON (SE): WILPF Sweden, Master of Ceremony
30
JOZEF GOLDBLAT (CH): Geneva International Peace Research Institute (GIPRI)
KAI HAGEN (DE): Friedenswerkstatt Mutlangen e.V., participant in the Palme Project
KERSTIN GREBäCK (SE): Co-president WILPF
KRISTIN BLOM (SE): Campaigns Officer International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)
LEILA MOEIN (IR): IPPNW Iran, participant in the Palme Project
LENA HJELM-WALLéN (SE): Former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sweden
LEONORE WIDE (SE): Chairperson Swedish Network for Nuclear Disarmament, vice President Swedish Section of IPPNW
MAJ BRITT THEORIN (SE): Ambassador, former MP Sweden and European Parliament
MASAKO IKEGAMI (SE): Professor and Director of the Center for Pacific Asia Studies (CPAS), Stockholm University
MERAV DATAN (IL): Board Member and former Research Director, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP)
MOHAMED SHAKER (EG): Ambassador, Vice Chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs
NINA EISENHARDT (DE): Ban All Nukes generation (BANg) Coordinator
OLOF KLEBERG (SE): Former editor-in-chief, Västerbottens-Kuriren, daily newspaper
PETER WEIDERUD (SE): Chairperson, the Swedish League of Christian Social Democrats (Broderskap),
Former Special Assistant for Arms Control to Sweden’s Minister of Defense
PETRA TÖTTERMAN ANDORFF (SE): Secretary General Swedish Section of WILPF
PIA JOHANSSON (SE): Information Manager Swedish Section of WILPF
PIERRE SCHORI (SE): Chairperson the Olof Palme Memorial Fund
PIOTR JANISZEWSKI (PL): IALANA Poland, participant in the Palme Project
RAY ACHESON (US): Program Director Reaching Critical Will, a project of WILPF
REBECCA JOHNSON (UK): Founding Director and Editor of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy
REGINA HAGEN (DE): International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Nuclear Weapons INESAP
ROLF EKéUS (SE): Ambassador, Chairperson Pugwash Sweden, Chairperson SIPRI
SANDRA FONG (FJ): WILPF Fiji, participant in the Palme Project
SERGEJ KOLESNIKOV (RU): Academician, President Russian Section of IPPNW
SERGIO DUARTE (UN): United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs
SHANTA KUMAR SHRESTHA (NP): IPPNW Nepal, participant in the Palme Project
STEFFEN KONGSTAD (NO): Director General, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
STIG GUSTAFSSON (SE): Former MP, President of Swedish Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms IALANA Sweden
SUSANNA LIV (SE): Olof Palme Memorial Fund
SUSI SNYDER (US): Secretary General WILPF, now serving as Programme Leader with IKV Pax Christi
TIM WRIGHT (AU): International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
TOMAS MAGNUSSON (SE): President International Peace Bureau (IPB)
31
APPENDIX CONFERENCE PROGRAM
FRIDAY 6 NOVEMBER: REACHING NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
1-3 PM: MOBILIZING THE NEXT GENERATION FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
2-4.30 PM: REGISTRATION
4-5 PM: CONCERT BY FOLK MUSICIANS
5-5.15 PM: CONFERENCE OPENING
H.E. Sergio Duarte (UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs) - Christer Ahlström
(Deputy Director General, Head of Department for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation,
Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs)
5.15-6.45 PM: OPENING PANEL - REACHING NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT - FROM VISIONS TO REALITY
Speakers: Hans Blix (WMDC) - Henrik Salander (MPI) - Rebecca Johnson (Acronym Institute)
- Chair: Susi Snyder (WILPF)
6.45-7 PM: AWARD CEREMONY: THE “UN-FRIEND OF THE YEAR” WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY UNA SWEDEN
7-9 PM: CONFERENCE RECEPTION
SATURDAY 7 NOVEMBER: FRAMING THE PICTURE - LEGAL, NORMATIVE AND HUMAN ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
9.00 - 9.15 AM: INTRODUCTION - Lena Hjelm-Wallén (former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sweden)
9.15 - 10.15 AM: PANEL I - THE LEGAL AND NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK - CHALLENGES AND POSSIBILITIES
Speakers: Igor S. Neverov (Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Sweden)
- Hans Corell (Ambassador, Former Legal Counsel of the UN) - Jozef Goldblat (GIPRI)
– Merav Datan (LCNP) - Chair: Gunnar Westberg (IPPNW)
10.45-12 AM: PANEL II - NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES - ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Jan Lodal (Former President of the Atlantic Council of the US)
- Dominique Lalanne (Abolition 2000 Europe) - Rebecca Johnson (Acronym Institute)
- Sergej Kolesnikov (IPPNW RU) - Chair: Ime John (IPPNW)
1.30-2.40 PM: SEMINAR I - SUSTAINING SECURITY ON THE ROAD TO ZERO
Speakers: Jan Lodal (Former President of the Atlantic Council of the US)
- Igor S. Neverov (Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Sweden) - John Loretz (IPPNW)
- Chair: Petra Tötterman Andorff (WILPF)
1.30-2.40 PM: SEMINAR II - MOBILIZING PEOPLE FOR CHANGE
Speakers: Peter Weiderud (Broderskap) - Kristin Blom (ITUC/IFS) - Anna Carin Joelsson (SSGI)
- Chair: Jan Larsson (IPPNW)
32
1.30-2.40 PM: SEMINAR III - THE MIDDLE EAST - SUGGESTIONS FOR REACHING A SECURE AND PEACEFUL REGION
Speakers: Merav Datan (LCNP) - Jan Prawitz (EM) – Mohamed Shaker (Ambassador)
- Chair: Kerstin Grebäck (WILPF)
3.10 - 4.20 PM: SEMINAR IV - NATO, THE EUROPEAN UNION AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE
Speakers: Susi Snyder (WILPF) - Daniel Nord (SIPRI) – Steffen Kongstad (Norwegian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs) – Jens Petersson (UNA Sweden) Chair: Stig Gustafsson (IALANA)
3.10 - 4.20 PM: SEMINAR V - SPACE, MISSILES, AND CONTROL REGIMES
Speakers: Regina Hagen (INESAP) - Agneta Norberg (GN) - Chair: Frida Sundberg (IPPNW)
3.10 - 4.20 PM: SEMINAR VI - ENERGY DEMANDS AND CLIMATE CHANGE: A ROLE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY?
Speakers: Henning Rodhe (Professor emeritus) – Ulf Svensson (Pugwash)
- Chair: Gunnar Westberg (IPPNW)
4.30-5 PM: SUMMARY AND REFLECTIONS
Gunnar Westberg (IPPNW) - Ami Lönnroth (Journalist)
SUNDAY 8 NOVEMBER: THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN STRENGTHENING THE NPT
9.00 - 11 AM: PANEL - REACHING CRITICAL WILL FOR DISARMAMENT
Speakers: Ray Acheson (Reaching Critical Will) – Maj Britt Theorin (Ambassador SE)
- Peter Weiderud (Broderskap) – Kristin Blom (ITUC/IFS) - Chair: John Loretz (IPPNW)
11.30 AM - 1 PM: SEMINAR I - CIVIL SOCIETY STRATEGIES AND PRIORITIES FOR THE NPT REVCON
Speakers: Susi Snyder (WILPF) - Regina Hagen (INESAP) – Tomas Magnusson (IPB)
- Chair: Håkan Mårtensson (Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation)
11.30 AM - 1 PM: SEMINAR II - RAISING PUBLIC OPINION - EDUCATION, GRASSROOT ACTIVITY AND MEDIA
Speakers: Inger Holmlund (Budkavlen) Masako Ikegami (Professor)
- Hans Levander (Life-Link Friendship-Schools Programme) - Tim Wright (ICAN)
- Chair: Ingrid Inglander (Educators for Peace)
11.30 AM - 1 PM: SEMINAR III - ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND REMAINING TASKS
- LESSONS FROM THE NPT ́S 13 STEPS AND THE BLIX COMMISSION
Speakers: Ray Acheson (Reaching Critical Will) - Henrik Salander (MPI)
- Rebecca Johnson (Acronym Institute) - Chair: Maj Britt Theorin (Ambassador SE)
11.30 AM - 1 PM: SEMINAR IV - THE NEW GENERATION - ACHIEVING NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Speakers: Sandra Fong (WILPF Fiji) - Ehase Agyeno (IPPNW Nigeria) - Nina Eisenhardt (BANg DE)
- Katharina Bergmann (IPPNW DE) – Kai Hagen (Friedenswerkstatt Mutlangen)
- Chair: Anna Ek (Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society SE)
1.15 - 2 PM: SUMMARY - THE WAY FORWARD - A ROADMAP FOR REACHING ZERO
Rolf Ekéus (Ambassador) - Olof Kleberg (Journalist) - Leonore Wide (IPPNW)
33
A sincere thank you to all
volunteers and participants
P H O T O S : D E N N I S D A H L Q W I S T
Supporting the vision of a
nuclear weapons free world
Broad international support is needed for the vision of a nuclear weapons free world to become a reality.
This conference has aimed to mobilize such support. The Swedish Network for Nuclear Disarmament
acknowledges and thanks the following sponsors for their generous contributions:
THE SWEDISH MINISTRY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
KJELL OCH MÄRTA BEIJERS STIFTELSE
ABSOLUT CATERING
P A L M E S T I P E N D I E T
