Remarks on a Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

The Minister’s introduction was based on the following talking points
(must be checked against delivery).

 

• Honoured to be present at this important event and highly appreciate of this initiative by NTI and SIPRI.

 

• The work of former Secretaries Shultz, Kissinger and Perry and my good friend Sam Nunn has had a huge impact on the global discourse on these issues. Your editorials in The Wall Street Journal were eye-openers on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

• Most of all, you addressed the paradox that while nuclear weapons represent a fundamental threat to the continued existence of mankind the general public today seems at best to be indifferent to the issue. 

 

• To a large extent, the issue of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation is now confined to a closed circle of bureaucrats, diplomats, researchers and some very active NGO representatives. If we are to achieve genuine progress, we must break out of this framework, which is rather limited in political terms.

 

• It is extremely encouraging that President Obama is raising awareness of the challenge ahead of us so forcefully. We strongly appreciate his strong and continued leadership, his efforts towards achieving deep cuts in the US arsenal, down to hundreds rather than thousands of warheads, and towards narrowing the range of conditions under which the US would consider using nuclear arms. This is true political leadership, demonstrating that nuclear doctrines are not to be left to a small group of experts. The nuclear issue is indeed a political issue, not a technical matter.

 

• The NPT Review Conference next year will be the world community’s opportunity to set a forward-looking agenda that unites the issues of nuclear disarmament, the right to peaceful nuclear applications and the need to develop a robust non-proliferation regime which also addresses nuclear security. We should agree on what would constitute a positive or successful outcome of the NPT Review Conference next year.

 

• President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit next year represents an important opportunity in this respect. Nuclear security must be seen as an integral part of our overall efforts to eliminate the nuclear threat altogether.

 

• But we do need to raise the level of public awareness and understanding of the issues in order to generate support for the political measures needed to reach these goals. We are unlikely to create much enthusiasm if we stick to traditional approaches such as CD, FMCT, NSA or even CTBT. Indeed, most of these abbreviations only create a feeling of alienation and indifference. Our task as political leaders is to demonstrate that disarmament is meaningful and will make a real difference to efforts to safeguard our societies, our nations, and our lives.

 

• In fact, disarmament is very much about preventing a humanitarian, climatic and financial crisis. We must carry this message beyond our friends in the NGO community. We must mobilise the private sector. I cannot imagine anything more devastating to stock markets than a nuclear detonation. 11th September would pale in comparison. I’m sure Wall Street would agree.

 

• Another angle to this issue is International Humanitarian Law. It cannot be denied that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. We should engage the humanitarian actors in nuclear weapon states, such as the Red Cross. A firm declaration on the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons could reduce their legitimacy and, by consequence, their political value.

 

• There can be no doubt that a prime challenge is to remove the status that acquiring nuclear weapons can afford. Why should the acquisition of nuclear arms be rewarded politically? Seen from a non-proliferation perspective, any new permanent members of the Council should be non-nuclear weapon states.

 

• It is high time we took a serious look at current nuclear deterrence doctrines. Wouldn’t we all agree that the political cost of using nuclear weapons would be so high that very few political leaders would contemplate it as a practical option? One may question the credibility of nuclear deterrence. At a minimum, it can be argued that the deterrent value of nuclear weapons is extremely limited. By maintaining huge stocks and continuing to adhere to Cold War doctrines, we weaken our own arguments and provide justification for others who seek nuclear weapons.

 

• Make no mistake, I believe in a strong alliance, politically as well as militarily. However, I also believe that the NATO Alliance is much better served by effective, credible non-nuclear deterrence than the ultimate threat to use senseless weapons.

 

• Indeed, we have to explore the question of what is needed to realise the overall objective of a safer world without nuclear weapons.