Nuclear non-proliferation is a fundamentally European issue which is not yet part of any EU agenda
Erkki Tuomio
​https://ecfr.eu/article/it-is-time-to-end-our-reliance-on-nuclear-weapons/
Published on the 2nd November 2020, European Council on Foreign Relations

In July 2017, an overwhelming majority of the UN General Assembly adopted a landmark global agreement to ban nuclear weapons, known as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Ratification by the fiftieth country took place this year, on the day the United Nations celebrated its 75th anniversary. The treaty will now enter into force in 90 days’ time. Those countries that have ratified the treaty include Austria, Ireland, and Malta – three member states of the European Union – and it is to be hoped that others in Europe will soon follow.Finland did not participate in the negotiations leading up to the treaty, and it did not vote for it. Public opinion is, however, in favour of the treaty, with one poll showing that 84 per cent of Finns would support signing up. Three parties in Finland’s coalition government also want the country to join. Foreign ministry officials have argued in hearings of the Finnish parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee that joining would weaken the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – a faulty reasoning that the Committee unanimously rejected.

It is worth quoting at length the statement published on 21 September this year by 56 former leaders and foreign or defence ministers of NATO and US ally countries, including two former NATO secretaries-general:

“The prohibition treaty is an important reinforcement to the half-century-old Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, though remarkably successful in curbing the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries, has failed to establish a universal taboo against the possession of nuclear weapons. The five nuclear-armed nations that had nuclear weapons at the time of the NPT’s negotiation — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — apparently view it as a licence to retain their nuclear forces in perpetuity. Instead of disarming, they are investing heavily in upgrades to their arsenals, with plans to retain them for many decades to come. This is patently unacceptable.”

It is precisely the frustration at the lack of progress with nuclear disarmament – to which the nuclear weapons states committed themselves in the grand bargain to get the non-nuclear countries to accept the NPT treaty signed in 1968 – that gave decisive impetus to the prohibition treaty. Obviously, without the participation of the nuclear weapons states, not one nuclear weapon will be dismantled. But without pressure from the non-nuclear weapons states in the form of this treaty, neither will they engage in serious efforts at disarmament. Nuclear weapons states will instead continue the present trend of modernising existing and developing new nuclear weapons systems.

The risk of accidental or miscalculated nuclear weapon use may today be even greater than at the height of the cold war

Support in NATO countries for doing away with all weapons of mass destruction is growing, as evidenced by the signatories to the statement above. This is important because one argument made in Finland and Sweden, although it is rarely made in public, for opposing joining the prohibition treaty is the displeasure the US would show at such a step, which could hinder the deepening of these countries’ partnership relations with NATO. Given the growing demand in non-nuclear NATO countries to sign the treaty this is just as spurious as the NPT argument against joining.

The time has come for all states in the world to bring an end to the misguided, illegitimate, and immoral reliance on nuclear weapons. An all-out nuclear war is a threat to human life as a whole and would immediately bring about all the disasters we are trying to avoid with our efforts to curtail climate change and implement the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030.

No responsible leader disputes this. Yet we continue to conduct exercises in preparation for a nuclear war. The risk of accidental or miscalculated nuclear weapon use may today be even greater than at the height of the cold war. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is, as the statement quoted says, “a beacon of hope in a time of darkness”.

There is one nuclear weapons state in the EU (formerly two) and 21 EU member states in NATO, but nuclear weapons and related issues have never formed part of the EU’s agenda. This is a fundamentally European issue, given the likelihood that Europe would face the greatest level of destruction in the event of a conflict and because of the European preference for achieving change through rules-based processes. All EU member states should address it and join the treaty banning all nuclear weapons. Three member states in the EU have already done so; others should follow them.

Erkki Tuomioja is ECFR member and former Minister for Foreign Affairs in Finland.

• • WhatsApp
  
  In July 2017, an overwhelming majority of the UN General Assembly adopted a landmark global agreement to ban nuclear weapons, known as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Ratification by the fiftieth country took place this year, on the day the United Nations celebrated its 75th anniversary. The treaty will now enter into force in 90 days’ time. Those countries that have ratified the treaty include Austria, Ireland, and Malta – three member states of the European Union – and it is to be hoped that others in Europe will soon follow.
  Finland did not participate in the negotiations leading up to the treaty, and it did not vote for it. Public opinion is, however, in favour of the treaty, with one poll showing that 84 per cent of Finns would support signing up. Three parties in Finland’s coalition government also want the country to join. Foreign ministry officials have argued in hearings of the Finnish parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee that joining would weaken the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – a faulty reasoning that the Committee unanimously rejected.
  It is worth quoting at length the statement published on 21 September this year by 56 former leaders and foreign or defence ministers of NATO and US ally countries, including two former NATO secretaries-general:
  “The prohibition treaty is an important reinforcement to the half-century-old Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, though remarkably successful in curbing the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries, has failed to establish a universal taboo against the possession of nuclear weapons. The five nuclear-armed nations that had nuclear weapons at the time of the NPT’s negotiation — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — apparently view it as a licence to retain their nuclear forces in perpetuity. Instead of disarming, they are investing heavily in upgrades to their arsenals, with plans to retain them for many decades to come. This is patently unacceptable.”
  It is precisely the frustration at the lack of progress with nuclear disarmament – to which the nuclear weapons states committed themselves in the grand bargain to get the non-nuclear countries to accept the NPT treaty signed in 1968 – that gave decisive impetus to the prohibition treaty. Obviously, without the participation of the nuclear weapons states, not one nuclear weapon will be dismantled. But without pressure from the non-nuclear weapons states in the form of this treaty, neither will they engage in serious efforts at disarmament. Nuclear weapons states will instead continue the present trend of modernising existing and developing new nuclear weapons systems.
  The risk of accidental or miscalculated nuclear weapon use may today be even greater than at the height of the cold war
  Support in NATO countries for doing away with all weapons of mass destruction is growing, as evidenced by the signatories to the statement above. This is important because one argument made in Finland and Sweden, although it is rarely made in public, for opposing joining the prohibition treaty is the displeasure the US would show at such a step, which could hinder the deepening of these countries’ partnership relations with NATO. Given the growing demand in non-nuclear NATO countries to sign the treaty this is just as spurious as the NPT argument against joining.
  The time has come for all states in the world to bring an end to the misguided, illegitimate, and immoral reliance on nuclear weapons. An all-out nuclear war is a threat to human life as a whole and would immediately bring about all the disasters we are trying to avoid with our efforts to curtail climate change and implement the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030.
  No responsible leader disputes this. Yet we continue to conduct exercises in preparation for a nuclear war. The risk of accidental or miscalculated nuclear weapon use may today be even greater than at the height of the cold war. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is, as the statement quoted says, “a beacon of hope in a time of darkness”.
  There is one nuclear weapons state in the EU (formerly two) and 21 EU member states in NATO, but nuclear weapons and related issues have never formed part of the EU’s agenda. This is a fundamentally European issue, given the likelihood that Europe would face the greatest level of destruction in the event of a conflict and because of the European preference for achieving change through rules-based processes. All EU member states should address it and join the treaty banning all nuclear weapons. Three member states in the EU have already done so; others should follow them.
  Erkki Tuomioja is ECFR member and former Minister for Foreign Affairs in Finland.
  
  The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of its individual authors.
  
  AUTHORErkki Tuomioja
  
  WhatsApp

In July 2017, an overwhelming majority of the UN General Assembly adopted a landmark global agreement to ban nuclear weapons, known as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Ratification by the fiftieth country took place this year, on the day the United Nations celebrated its 75th anniversary. The treaty will now enter into force in 90 days’ time. Those countries that have ratified the treaty include Austria, Ireland, and Malta – three member states of the European Union – and it is to be hoped that others in Europe will soon follow.
Finland did not participate in the negotiations leading up to the treaty, and it did not vote for it. Public opinion is, however, in favour of the treaty, with one poll showing that 84 per cent of Finns would support signing up. Three parties in Finland’s coalition government also want the country to join. Foreign ministry officials have argued in hearings of the Finnish parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee that joining would weaken the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – a faulty reasoning that the Committee unanimously rejected.
It is worth quoting at length the statement published on 21 September this year by 56 former leaders and foreign or defence ministers of NATO and US ally countries, including two former NATO secretaries-general:
“The prohibition treaty is an important reinforcement to the half-century-old Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, though remarkably successful in curbing the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries, has failed to establish a universal taboo against the possession of nuclear weapons. The five nuclear-armed nations that had nuclear weapons at the time of the NPT’s negotiation — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — apparently view it as a licence to retain their nuclear forces in perpetuity. Instead of disarming, they are investing heavily in upgrades to their arsenals, with plans to retain them for many decades to come. This is patently unacceptable.”
It is precisely the frustration at the lack of progress with nuclear disarmament – to which the nuclear weapons states committed themselves in the grand bargain to get the non-nuclear countries to accept the NPT treaty signed in 1968 – that gave decisive impetus to the prohibition treaty. Obviously, without the participation of the nuclear weapons states, not one nuclear weapon will be dismantled. But without pressure from the non-nuclear weapons states in the form of this treaty, neither will they engage in serious efforts at disarmament. Nuclear weapons states will instead continue the present trend of modernising existing and developing new nuclear weapons systems.
The risk of accidental or miscalculated nuclear weapon use may today be even greater than at the height of the cold war
Support in NATO countries for doing away with all weapons of mass destruction is growing, as evidenced by the signatories to the statement above. This is important because one argument made in Finland and Sweden, although it is rarely made in public, for opposing joining the prohibition treaty is the displeasure the US would show at such a step, which could hinder the deepening of these countries’ partnership relations with NATO. Given the growing demand in non-nuclear NATO countries to sign the treaty this is just as spurious as the NPT argument against joining.
The time has come for all states in the world to bring an end to the misguided, illegitimate, and immoral reliance on nuclear weapons. An all-out nuclear war is a threat to human life as a whole and would immediately bring about all the disasters we are trying to avoid with our efforts to curtail climate change and implement the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030.
No responsible leader disputes this. Yet we continue to conduct exercises in preparation for a nuclear war. The risk of accidental or miscalculated nuclear weapon use may today be even greater than at the height of the cold war. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is, as the statement quoted says, “a beacon of hope in a time of darkness”.
There is one nuclear weapons state in the EU (formerly two) and 21 EU member states in NATO, but nuclear weapons and related issues have never formed part of the EU’s agenda. This is a fundamentally European issue, given the likelihood that Europe would face the greatest level of destruction in the event of a conflict and because of the European preference for achieving change through rules-based processes. All EU member states should address it and join the treaty banning all nuclear weapons. Three member states in the EU have already done so; others should follow them.
Erkki Tuomioja is ECFR member and former Minister for Foreign Affairs in Finland.

The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of its individual authors.

AUTHORErkki Tuomioja

It wasn’t a hard question to answer: “Would WeMove members chip in to back activists pushing the Polish government to declare a climate emergency?” We knew it would be a yes - but we didn’t realise how much those protests would achieve.
A few days after the people-powered protests ended, the result was in: they were a huge success. Politicians from different political parties spoke up to back the protesters’ demands, and the media was full of debate on climate change.
Protestors made the most of the opportunity to convince the government to act. People turned up in their thousands. They even closed down a major road in Warsaw. Some of Poland’s most influential media rushed to cover the story of the protests. And WeMove members’ donations helped make it happen, paying for the things the protestors needed to get the job done.

Climate activists in WarsawIt’s not an easy time to be a climate activist in Poland. The country just elected a government that has a bad track record on tackling the climate threat. So, you can imagine how it felt to the protest organisers to know that money had poured in from supporters all over Europe. They might be up against it in Warsaw, but they had backers in countries all over Europe.
We can make that happen for climate activists everywhere. No matter how isolated they might be at home, we can make sure they know they have supporters ready to step in, all over our region.
This is what we’ll do until the end of the year. By then, European leaders will decide on the European Union's climate ambition for the next 10 and even 30 years. They will also choose whether we are courageous enough to recover together from the pandemic in laying the foundations of a bright, clean and green future.
Politicians might want us to believe that only they can make the big decisions on our future. But the truth is that nothing happens without people power: together, we are the ones who can convince our politicians to act, before the climate crisis gets any worse.
In solidarity,
David (London), Olga (Bologna), Jörg (Lübeck) and the WeMove Europe team
PS. With the right resources, we can back protests like the one in Poland wherever they happen in Europe. But to do that, we have to be able to plan ahead - and that means resources we can rely on. Are you able to give a one-off donation to WeMove, so we can keep supporting activists?


WeMove Europe is an independent and values-based organisation that seeks to build people power to transform Europe in the name of our community, future generations and the planet.

​https://www.icanw.org/report_73_billion_nuclear_weapons_spending_2020

​Om vi kan upphöra att kriga under en pandemi, varför kan vi inte göra det under ”vanliga förhållanden”?
Finländarna upplever nu den största krisen sedan andra världskriget. Karantäner, slutstressad vårdpersonal, hemundervisning, tålamodsprövade familjer, ökande arbetslöshet med mera.
Men inget ont som inte för något gott med sig. I ett upprop uppmanar FN:s generalsekreterare António Guterres alla stridande parter i världens konflikter till vapenvila för att möta den gemensamma fienden; coronaviruset. Guterres betonar att hälsosystemen i länder med krig redan har kollapsat och att korridorer måste öppnas för livräddande hjälp. För någon vecka sedan bekräftade 70 länder (även Finland), och ett antal ansedda humanitära organisationer, sitt stöd för uppropet. Namninsamlingen på nätet (bland annat Avaaz) visade 14 april drygt 2,2 miljoner personliga underskrifter.
Överallt i världen höjs röster för att militära medel skall omdistribueras till humanitära ändamål och konfliktförebyggande åtgärder. Trots coronakrisen uppmanar dock Natos generalsekreterare Stoltenberg medlemsstaterna att uppfylla kraven på höjda militärutgifter. Enorma summor läggs ned på modernisering av atomvapen, utveckling och produktion av nya vapen, och på massiva militärövningar omfattande atomkrigsscenarier.
World Beyond War (USA) har räknat ut att världens globala militära utgifter på 1 800 miljarder dollar årligen skulle räcka till för 17 100 000 bäddar för intensivvård, 1 995 000 respiratorer, 8 550 000 sjukskötare och 4 275 000 läkare. Vapen tillverkas för att förgöra och döda, läkare utbildas för att rädda liv. Det finns pengar – men viljan fattas!
Guterres upprop för vapenvila är ett litet steg i rätt riktning. Men för att rädda världen behövs det avsevärt större steg; vilja att omdistribuera militära budgetar, vilja till nedrustning och uppriktig konfliktlösning, förtroendeuppbyggande förhandlingar mellan öst och väst, respekt för mödosamt upprättade internationella avtal, inrättande av fredsministerier, slut på skrämselpropaganda och hotscenarier, total nedrustning av alla atomvapen.
Om vi kan upphöra att kriga under en pandemi, varför kan vi inte göra det under "vanliga förhållanden"? Det vi nu upplever under coronakrisen är rena rama rosenröda drömmen jämfört med läget efter ett "begränsat" atomvapenkrig i till exempel Kaliningrad-området. Inför Natos Defender 20-megamilitärövning, som trots pandemin pågår just nu i Baltikum och andra delar av Västeuropa, deltog USA:s försvarsminister Mark Esper i februari i ett krigsspel vid USA:s strategiska kommandohögkvarter i Nebraska där man simulerade atomvapenanvändning mot Ryssland. I ett meddelande beträffande tillfället uttryckte sig USA:s försvarsministerium så här: "Scenariot inkluderade en europeisk beredskap för att genomföra ett krig med Ryssland i vilket Ryssland beslutar att använda kärnvapen med begränsad verkan mot en plats på Natos territorium."
Svaret från Ryssland var entydigt. Alexander Sherin, viceordförande för ryska dumans försvarskommitté konstaterade i HCH news att det vore dumt av Moskva att inleda en kärnvapenattack mot europeiska länder eftersom det radioaktiva nedfallet även skulle drabba Ryssland. Sherin framhävde att orsaken till att USA så nonchalant förhåller sig till kärnvapenövningarna är att det aldrig har utspelats ett stort krig på den amerikanska kontinenten i motsats till i Europa och Ryssland.
USA:s otaliga krig har i stället utspelats utanför landets gränser. Europa ligger på betryggande avstånd från USA. De första, och hittills enda atombomberna i världen fälldes av USA långt borta i Japan. Kommer de nästa att fällas långt borta i Europa?
Peter Kuznick, direktör för institutet för nukleära studier vid American University i Washington, betonar att det inte finns något sådant som ett begränsat atomkrig. Han varnar för en eskalation som leder till den mänskliga civilisationens utplåning.
Skall Finland i dagens situation verkligen använda över tio miljarder euro på nya jaktplan och krigsfartyg som skall betjäna Nato och leda till ytterligare spänningar mellan USA och Ryssland. Skall Finland fortsätta att vara dödens hantlangare?
Ulla Klötzer, Kvinnor för fred och Kvinnor mot atomkraft

En god nyhet är att Barcelona den 19 februari anslöt sig till ICAN Cities Appeal. Setsuko Thurlow, överlevare från Hiroshima, överlämnade diplomet till borgmästaren Ada Colau. Av 41 ledamöter i stadsfullmäktige hade 37 röstat för!
Hon deltog också i det spanska parlamentet den 26 februari, vid ett möte om FN-konventionen, där en parlamentarisk grupp bildades för att jobba för en signering/ratificering. Varför är Spanien så viktigt i detta sammanhang? Spanien kan vara det första Nato-land som faktiskt ansluter sig till konventionen. I det avtal som Spanien slöt med Nato år 1986 skrevs två artiklar in som förbjuder produktion och användning av kärnvapen och andra massförstörelsevapen. Partiet Unidas Podemos som nu ingår i en regeringskoalition med Socialistpartiet kan få sin vilja igenom i den här frågan.
På fotot från det spanska parlamentet ovan är Setsuko Thurlow den med en röd halsduk.
https://www.pressenza.com/2020/03/spain-and-the-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons-event-in-the-spanish-congress/  

Övriga spanska städer som anslutit sig är: Binissalem, Cadiz, Canovelles, Coruña,
Ferrol, Granollers, La Garriga, Masllorenç, Vallromane och Zaragoza
Hela listan på https://cities.icanw.org/list_of_cities#h_480729527911576258164599

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) includes a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities. These include undertakings not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. The Treaty also prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and the provision of assistance to any State in the conduct of prohibited activities. States parties will be obliged to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited under the TPNW undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control. The Treaty also obliges States parties to provide adequate assistance to individuals affected by the use or testing of nuclear weapons, as well as to take necessary and appropriate measure of environmental remediation in areas under its jurisdiction or control contaminated as a result of activities related to the testing or use of nuclear weapons.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by the Conference (by a vote of 122 States in favour ( with one vote against and one abstention) at the United Nations on 7 July 2017, and opened for signature by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 20 September 2017. It will enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession has been deposited. 

FN:S KLIMATPANEL SOM PUBLICERADES DEN 8 OKTOBER 2018.
​RAPPORTEN INNEHÅLLER REFERENSER TILL 6000 VETENSKAPLIGA ARTIKLAR OCH ÄR SKRIVEN AV 91 FORSKARE FRÅN 40 OLIKA.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change

Glaciärerna smälter och havsnivån höjs fortare än vetenskapen beräknade i förra rapporten. Om inte åtgärder vidtas omgående så kan jordbruk omöjliggöras i vissa länder, kuststäder dränkas under vatten, fler extrema väderhändelser inträffa. Resultatet blir att människor flyr och det leder till konflikter om naturresurser som jord och vatten. Konflikterna rycker undan förutsättningarna för en fredlig och hållbar utveckling.

 Denna rapport har tagits fram på förfrågan till IPCC ”… att till år 2018 ta fram en specialrapport om konsekvenserna av 1,5°C uppvärmning jämfört med förindustriella nivåer och relaterade globala utsläppsbanor av växthusgaser”. Detta framgår av 21:a partskonferensen av FN:s ramkonvention om klimatförändringar beslut om antagande av Parisavtalet. IPCC beslutade i april 2016 att ta fram denna specialrapport om effekter av global uppvärmning på 1,5°C över förindustriella nivåer och relaterade utsläppsbanor av växthusgaser, i syfte att stärka den globala förmågan att svara upp mot hotet från klimatförändringen, målsättningar inom hållbar utveckling och ansträngningar för att utrota fattigdom. I denna Sammanfattning för beslutsfattare (“Summary for Policy Makers”, SPM) presenteras specialrapportens viktigaste slutsatser baserat på utvärderingen av tillgänglig vetenskaplig, teknisk och socioekonomisk litteratur med relevans för en global uppvärmning på 1,5°C och för att kunna jämföra mellan en global uppvärmning på 1,5°C och 2°C över förindustriell nivå. Konfidensnivån för varje central slutsats anges med IPCC:s standardiserade terminologi. Den vetenskapliga grunden för varje slutsats anges genom referenser till avsnitt i respektive kapitel. I sammanfattningen identifieras även kunskapsluckor, med hänvisning till relevanta underliggande kapitel.