Thursday, 9th March 2023
I was pleased to see Janet and Anne on the morning after my arrival, and we went to the venue. The forum was held in Sentralen in the city centre, as the name suggests.
The forum started with an opening film “If you love this planet”. It can be found among other very good films on ICAN’s vimeo archive. https://vimeo.com/goodbyenukes
The film told the story of hibakusha Setsuko Thurlow and the progress ICAN has made with the Nuclear Ban Treaty. It was a positive message that made me feel strong and hopeful about the issue rather than frustrated and powerless.
The Nuclear Taboo
Nina Tannenwald (Professor of International Studies at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna) spoke about the “Nuclear Taboo”, explaining her research and the crux of her book with the same title. She counts 77 traditions of non-use, thanks to the inhibition of being the first to use it. The NFE (no-first-use) pledge was made in China in 1964 between the nuclear weapon states, but has since lost its credibility.
Although nuclear weapons were never legalized, they were made normal during the Cold War. Therefore, it is crucial to making a point of making them illegal.
Atmospheric nuclear testing led to global anti-nuclear grassroots movements that stigmatised the bomb, especially throughout the 1950s and the 1980s, but also now. Barack Obama presented a moral opprobrium (Prague 2009), in which he called for disarmament of nuclear weapons and abolishment of all nuclear tests to make the world peaceful and secure. It was an effort to change public opinion that the USA, being a superpower, was responsible to make this move; This was done to break with dated views that Eisenhower presented in 1953 as being “just another weapon”.
The use of nuclear weapons was considered in the Vietnam and the Korean war. In recent times politicians made it clear that they would make use of nuclear weapons and with that, the threat of nuclear weapons became legitimate: It was mentioned by Kim Jong Un, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi and Shazia Marri. The attitude of “they are there, why shouldn’t we use them” is irresponsible talk of superpowers for self-interest.
Through the Nuclear Ban Treaty, the “nuclear taboo” has an institutional and legal home. It will put pressure on political leaders to give clear messages like Mikhail Gorbachev: “Nuclear war can never be won”.
Looking Back to Look Forward: The Impact of the Humanitarian Initiative
At the beginning of the next panel, we watched a excerpt of the Geneva speech of the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Jakob Kellenberger. In it he states that there has been a chemical test convention, a mine ban, the ban of biological weapons, and the prohibition of nuclear testing, and yet there was no nuclear weapon ban in place despite catastrophic humanitarian consequence. The statement was made in 2010, and you can find it in full here:
www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/statement/nuclear-weapons-statement
The panel consisted of Peter Herby (Arms Adviser for the Norwegian Red Cross), Steffen Kongstad (Norwegian Foreign Service), and Dr Patricia Lewis (International Security Lead/ Research Director for Conflict, Science and Transformation).
They reflected on last year’s Humanitarian Impact Conference in Vienna. The conference happened in conjunction with the First Member’s Meeting of State Parties of the TPNW. It focussed on the science and the impact of what the weapons do. And the real risk of nuclear weapons being used to threaten.
It is important to raise the topic with local people and talk about this uncomfortable topic. At the same time the local and national powers need to be held accountable to give advice and information on what is in place in case nuclear weapons are used.
The “Follow the Weasel” campaign came about as a response to the weasel-like behaviour of dodging the topic and pressing for taking responsibility of all consequences of having nuclear arms. “The Weasel” was a response to Australia’s and Germany’s vague behaviour towards the NPT. The actions ridiculed the non-communicative and wimpish behaviour of politicians that were not engaging with the Nuclear Taboo. The blog www.wildfire-v.org changed the game of nuclear disarmament.
The speakers discussed the need to approach nuclear complicit states, because they are threatening a peaceful future and a sustainable planet. The consequences of use, threat and ownership need to be contested until a long-term perspective is in place. The thought of use needs to be stigmatised continuously.
Through this debate the prevailing belief that nuclear weapons would prevent war will be shaken, because it would make the irresponsible behaviours transparent. The questions should be, how, why and under which circumstance would the use of nuclear weapons be viable of justifiable. This is also the reason why it is crucial to encourage an observer status – to learn and to enter the dialogue.
We should not consider ourselves as safe, but as worried. We are relying on luck, and we do not know if there will be another Stanislav Petrov.
As time seems to be running out, things need to be taken to a local level to highlight the failure of global disarmament. Countries are breaking their promise and we need to hold them accountable.
Why Norms Matter (workshop)
In this workshop held by Torbjørn Graff Hugo (policy advisor on multilateral processes and global advocacy) and we had a look at texts that were pro- nuclear weapons. The aim was to debunk these arguments by looking at the language that was used in the documents. We then separated in groups, some of them had to find arguments for nuclear weapons, whilst other groups had to formulate the ones against.
The outcome of this exercise showed that:
- nuclear weapons make superpowers and the inferiors. But in the end, there are no “good guys” and “bad guys” (“good” democratic vs “bad” autocratic systems?).
- These powers/people might not be responsible – if they were, it would be responsible to disarm.
- One cannot construct trust by threat basted violence, which undermines trust. Nuclear weapons are always offensive, never defensive.
- Inflammable quotes and smart rhetoric are used against the TPNW.
Today’s Nuclear Discourse and Unclear Politics
Yelyzaveta Khodorovska (Graduate of International Relations department at Odesa National University, Ukraine), Gabriella Irsten (Head of sustainable peace and human security at the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society) and Franziska Stärk (Researcher in the Arms Control and Emerging Technologies Program at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg).
Yelyzaveta gave a first-hand report on the impact of nuclear weapons in the war of Ukraine. To Ukrainians nuclear threat has been on for a decade when the war started almost 10 years ago with annex of Crimea. The new possibility of a NATO membership brought the issue of nuclear weapons to the table. People who campaign for disarmament are being stigmatised as Putin sympathizers. The war brought about debates on nuclear injustice and questions surrounding the notions of deterrence, non-proliferation, and disarmament.
There is a discrepancy between the economy of war and the economy of peace. These become apparent within the nuclear order. Yelysaveta answered the question if Ukraine would be safer with nuclear weapons with a clear no. Possession of nuclear weapons would lead to isolation of the country, therefore the Ukraine decided consciously against it in the past. If nuclear weapons provided safety? No, they are a tool of power and are arbitrarily used to exercise it.
Are there benefits in tactical and strategic nuclear weapons? Are nuclear weapons less bad when they have a “controllable” yield? These statements lead to misconception. The smallest nuclear weapon affects a yield of 300 tonnes.
What would happen if all countries had nuclear weapons? Is the ownership of nuclear weapons necessary for co-existence? It is certain that a limited amount of weapons lead to limited war.
Instead of engaging our energies in war, we should learn to live with each other. We need to think about what victory is and for whom peace is and at what cost. Russia needs to be held accountable for its actions.
Therefore, the TPNW is crucial, because if it failed, there would be no limit to arms racing transparency. The things that give hope are networking, overlap of interests; and the awareness that we don’t start from zero.
_________________________________
In the evening we were invited to a reception at the City Hall, where ICAN initially received the Peace Nobel Prize. We were greeted by the mayor and spoilt with canapés, macaroons, and champagne. Afterwards we were given a tour of the City Hall and its astonishing frescos.
Friday, 10th of March 2023
Nuclear Freeze: Ice Bathing and Sauna
Early in the morning I jumped several times into the icy fjord just a few 100 yards away from Sentralen where the forum was held. Together with a few other brave people. It was increadibly pleasant.
Across borders: Youth Parties and Nuclear Weapon Policy
After the icy water shock, I and many people around me were shocked by the next panel.
On it were Astrid Hoem (President of the Workers’ Youth League), Rachid Khenissi (Jusos Germany), and Siebe Jonckheere (International secretary of the young socialists in Belgium). All of them were youth politicians of NATO countries.
Germany is exiting nuclear energy, and the coalition is leaning towards disarmament. Like Germany, Belgium is reacting to having American weapons on their soil. The Belgian youth politician was confident that it would happen in time. Astrid proposed to work together with other Scandinavians to promote a Nordic nuclear free zone. The consequence of lobbying for a Nordic nuclear free zone could advance a nuclear free Europe. There were good points of keeping up an inclusive dialogue, putting on pressure, “making baby steps in the right direction”, joining forces with climate movements and having the stamina to not give up.
The worrying remarks that some of these people made were sentimentality of a more peaceful time during the cold war, and seeing no problem in carrying on the arms race, as long as it did not involve nuclear weapons. This panel had no connection with the conclusions that were made the previous day. I got the impression that some of the young politicians were self-righteous and arrogant and had the illusion of being the “good guys”.
Building a Grassroots Campaign: How, Why and Where to Start
The speakers were: Yelyzaveta Khodorovska, international relations scholar and Odessa graduate, who was on Thursday’s panel. Ellie Kinney (CND Vice-Chair) is observing climate emissions in the military and sees nuclear weapons as ultimate symbols of oppression. Lucy Tiller is a founding member and former chair of Youth for TPNW. Uzo Ohanyere is the co-founder of Nyuklia Eureka (African Youth for TPNW) He says, you can kill a person but not an idea. Bill Kidd (SNP and MP since 2007). Grassroots are where things come from and where things go to – movements need to support each other.
Ellie suggested that we need to meet people where they are. She told stories of supplying temporary tattoos at Glastonbury and how effective prints on beermats were and organizing pub crawls. Having fun works well for campaigning and overcomes the challenge of making things accessible.
Being sensible is not helpful and fear is paralyzing and prevents action, said Yelyzaveta. We need to learn from each other and support each other to be able to raise concerns and use the tools we have available. It’s important to always be ready to argue for your campaign, to make connections and to network.
Uzo sees that there is often a hurdle to approach a topic when the understanding is missing. His efforts are geared towards community engagement and keeping an open mind. Engaging with family is better to internalize what is going on, and from this microcosm ideas can grow, and this becomes a culture. In autocratic societies it is the families that get targeted to support a certain ideology.
Therefore, it doesn’t help to throw about opinions, but rather vocalizing the reasons for why it is important. People have their own different agendas in everyday life. The connection is made when people see how it might affect their personal life. Then people might be encouraged to campaign, for instance by writing letters.
Bill recounts the Scottish communities’ proximity to biggest nuclear base in the UK. Locals are living with the risk of dangerous leeks and accidental explosions. To demonstrate and to join CND is necessary that young people become part of movement that the presence of nuclear weapons doesn’t become normalized. Changes grow out of grass roots.
Both Uzo and Ellie stressed on demystifying contacting parliamentarians. After all, they are there to represent you and must be held accountable for their actions.
Younger people have most to lose and will be suffering the consequences for much longer. At the same time, younger people have a lot to offer – they have more physical and mental energy. Therefore, we always must facilitate access for younger people.
“Don’t bank on the bomb” is a cross party group that Bill suggests joining, in solidarity against any oppressive power. Showing solid support will lead an example of how to disarm. In case of independence UK wouldn’t be able to serve as a nuclear base.
Uzo highlighted that Africa is a nuclear free zone. It is time to support the international community, to support Africa, to listen to Africa, give Africans a voice because they know how nuclear disarmament works. Their uranium mines were the beginning of supply chains.
Joining the Dots from Climate Justice to Nuclear Justice
Present at this panel were Dr Olamide Samuel (Research Associate in Nuclear Politics),Diana Duah Asamoah (Climate and nuclear weapons project lead at Nyuklia Eureka), Georgina Bell (Nyuklia Eureka advocacy lead) and Brigitta Appiah Darko (Operations Lead at Nyuklia Eureka).
This session was very interactive, productive and drew special attention to how important kindness and networking is.
I learned that uranium is not scarce, but that it is mined in the global south because it is easier to exploit these countries. Testing also happened to marginalised communities, and so does the disposal of radioactive waste.
The outcomes of a nuclear exchange will be devastating. Advocacy and activism are needed to prevent this. Climate justice equals social justice equals nuclear justice.
To be strong for your campaign you need to use your superpowers of what you are good in and contribute this way without exhausting yourself. Also, it helps to be inspired by questions, rather than frustrated by ignorance.
At the end of this session participants could state who they would like to work with more in the future and connections were made immediately.
Gathering Outside the Parliament
At the end of this second day of the ICAN forum, we all went to parliament to present out self-made placards. Several politicians and union members came to make a speech.
Thank you, TP for putting trust in me and sending me out into the world.