Report on the 10TH NPT Review Conference’s Side Events

Humanitarian Consequences:

On the topic of universality, the Side Event titled “Article VI and the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons,” organized by Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), discussed the universality of the negative humanitarian consequences that would result from nuclear war. Citing a newly released research study that projected the effects of a nuclear war [4], Co-President of IPPNW Dr. Tilman Ruff warned that climate disruption as a result of nuclear war would produce universal negative humanitarian consequences not just for those targeted by atomic bombs but for all those living on this planet. Senior Arms Control Advisor for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Veronique Christory emphasized that first responders and humanitarian workers are human and therefore would not be spared from facing the humanitarian consequences as a result of nuclear war. Consequently, Christory used a humanitarian argument to put forward the case for nuclear disarmament, stating “What we cannot respond to, we must prevent… we will not be able to cope with a nuclear confrontation.”

Veronique Christory, Senior Arms Control Advisor for the International Committee of the Red Cross, stressing the unmanageable humanitarian consequences that would result from a nuclear war.

Dr. Ella Faiz of IPPNW France emphasizing that “the nuclear bombs have no nationality, no sex, no religion. It would affect ALL,” at IPPNW’s Side Event.In addition to organizing the aforementioned Side Event on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war, IPPNW also organized a Side Event titled “N-5 Doctors Speak with One Voice,” which included doctors from all nuclear-weapons States except China as panelists. Despite the current unstable international situation at the moment, particularly between the US/NATO States and Russia, all the doctors featured on the panel supported nuclear disarmament and agreed that no country in the world has the health infrastructure to handle a nuclear weapons attack, let alone a nuclear war. Unlike the Plenary meetings, where delegates from the US/NATO States and Russia disagreed on virtually everything other than the fact that they all want to keep their nuclear weapons, it was refreshing to see Dr. Olga Mironova of IPPNW Russia and Dr. Ella Faiz of IPPNW France, both agree that nuclear weapons are not good for human health and therefore must be prevented at all costs, no matter which State is in the “right” or the “wrong.”

Patricia Jaworek, Representative from Young Deep Cuts Commission and Panelist in the Deep Cuts Project’s Side Event stating that, “It is when times are tough that we need to prepare for a time when political conditions permit progress again.”

Current Affairs:

The current unstable international situation fueled by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent increased risk of nuclear weapons being used and/or nuclear power being abused was a focus of the Side Event titled, “Reducing nuclear risks and nuclear arsenals in times of tension in Europe,” organized by Challenges to Deep Cuts Project and the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH). Though the nuclear-weapons States have an obligation to eventually disarm as required by Article 6 of the NPT [5], this Side Event recognized the threats that nuclear-weapons States present to the world at this current moment in history and proposed risk-reduction measures that can be implemented now to decrease the likelihood that nuclear weapons are actually used. These proposed risk-reduction measures include the promotion of transparency measures as proposed by Angela Kane; the commitment to developing a successor framework for New START as proposed by Daryl Kimball; and dialogue as a form of strengthening trust between States as proposed by Patricia Jaworek.

Panelists at the Side Event titled, “Nuclear Weapons in Europe” advocating against ALL nuclear weapons in European territory, including both within nuclear-weapons States territories and within NATO nuclear-sharing States.Building upon the topic of the heightened risks of nuclear weapons being used in Europe as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Side Event titled “Nuclear Weapons in Europe,” organized by International Peace Bureau (IPB), Nuke Free Europe (NFE), and Rosa Luxembourg Stiftung, further discussed the risks of nuclear weapons existing in Europe in the first place. Not only are the UK and France characterized as nuclear-weapons States and host nuclear weapons within their own territories, but this Side Event recognized the existence of “nuclear-sharing” among NATO members, namely Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Germany, all of which host nuclear weapons for the US and which is tecnically a violation of the NPT.

Executive Director of the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO) asserting that “When this conversation stays in rooms outside of Israel or in very small rooms in Israel… nobody in Israel will even know what to say about the Zone.”

Executive Director of the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO) asserting that “When this conversation stays in rooms outside of Israel or in very small rooms in Israel… nobody in Israel will even know what to say about the Zone.”In the same way that “nuclear-sharing” technically violates the NPT and should be condemned, the Side Event organized by the Government of Ireland and the Middle East Treaty Organization discussed how Israel’s refusal to sign the NPT despite knowingly possessing nuclear weapons should likewise be condemned. Titled, “Achieving the Possible: A Middle East WMD Free Zone Draft Treaty, a regional organization and the need for an inclusive process,” this Side Event discussed the practicality of establishing a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone Treaty considering the reality that Israel refuses to sign international nuclear weapons legislation and lacks transparency in regards to the nuclear weapons in its possession. Highlighting the difference between the government of Israel’s undemocratic nuclear weapons program versus the actual views of the Israeli people on nuclear disarmament, METO’s founder Sharon Dolev cited the “huge gap between human security, citizen security, and the security of the state,” and questioned, “but what is the security of that state if not the security of the people?”

Ambassador Teburoro Tito, Permanent Representative of Kiribati to the UN, declaring that, “The bigger countries talk about our security, but then don’t include us in the conversation…if we want the world to be safe, get everybody together so we can talk about common security in the Pacific together” at ICAN Australia’s Side Event.While certain States increase nuclear risks due to their actual possession of nuclear weapons, the Side Event titled “Troubled Waters: Nuclear Submarines, AUKUS, and the NPT,” organized by ICAN Australia,” discussed how even legal uses of nuclear power for the creation of non-peaceful machinery such as nuclear submarines can also increase nuclear risks. Due to the fact that universal safeguards on nuclear material used for non-peaceful activities, including space and naval propulsions, does not yet exist, Paragraph 14 of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Safeguards Agreements 153 establishes that each State is subject to their own individual and varying safeguards [6]. This Side Event emphasized the objections presented by AUKUS States and Western solidarity States in establishing universal safeguards, as individualized application of safeguards allows certain non-nuclear weapons States aligned with the West such as Australia to engage in nuclear activities that could be disallowed in other non-nuclear weapons States. Citing the Australian government’s firm outward position in favor of the NPT and against the risks of nuclear weapons, Co-Chair of ICAN Australia Dr. Margaret Beavis pointed to Australia’s hypocrisy due to its involvement in AUKUS by stating, “Australia says it’s profoundly committed to a world without nuclear weapons, but the AUKUS proposal clearly goes against the values of the NPT.”

Japanese Liaison Council of 2nd Generation Atomic Bomb Survivors discusses the genetic (transgenerational) effects of atomic bomb radiation on 2nd generation Hibakusha through germ cells.

Victims’ Rights:

In addition to listening to the perspectives of nuclear disarmament experts, academics, and activists at Side Events, arguably the most powerful Side Events were those organized by members of affected communities themselves. The Side Event titled “Voices from the Second-Generation Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Towards the Establishment of the Human Rights of Radiation Victims (Hiroshima) Including Future Generations and the Realization of the Nuclear-Free World,” organized by the Japanese Liaison Council of Second-Generation Atomic Bomb Survivors (JLCSGABS), featured panelists that were all second or third-generation atomic bomb survivors themselves. By sharing the trans-generation physical, social, and economic effects of the atomic bombs that the panelists first-hand experience themselves, this Side Event powerfully demonstrated that trans-generational effects of nuclear weapons are real and that second and third-generation survivors of the atomic bombs should be included in Victim Assistance measures, such as the Victim Assistance Clause of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) [7].

Panelists of SPARK discussing how Korean atomic bomb survivors are pursuing a People’s Tribunal to hold the US Government accountable for crimes against humanity.