Workshop3　

Nuclear Abolition and Multilateral Negotiations
International Efforts to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
and How Japan Can Help

Mitsuru Kurosawa (Coordinator)

Introduction
This workshop discussed what should be done to overcome the crisis of the weakening of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons. The discussions focused on the problems of nuclear development by Iran and North Korea; the nuclear policy of the United States; the problems of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) and so on; efforts toward the abolition of nuclear weapons by the United Nations, the Conference on Disarmament, and individual countries; and in particular the roles that the Japanese government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) should play and their potential.

Jacqueline Cabasso
Nuclear weapons have gained legitimacy within US nuclear policy, and the US National Security Strategy talks about the use of nuclear weapons, expands the role of nuclear weapons, and obscures the borderline between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons. Furthermore, there is talk about preemptive strikes using nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear weapons as a preventive means.
The 2005 NPT Review Conference ended in failure, and the 13 practical steps relating to nuclear disarmament that were adopted at the 2000 NPT Review Conference
have not been implemented.
Article VI of the NPT is the only legal document that obliges the five nuclear-weapon states to pursue negotiations toward nuclear disarmament, and in Article IV the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy is recognized. We must maintain the NPT until the establishment of a treaty on the abolition of nuclear weapons. However, at the same time we should search for ways to move away from nuclear energy. In other words, while maintaining the NPT, we should make efforts toward a comprehensive treaty on the abolition of nuclear weapons and establish an international organization for sustainable energy.
We should form a new consensus in order to build a future that is different from the present, and the Japanese people, and in particular the hibakusha, can play an extremely important role in transmitting to the next generation the fundamental lesson that "it must never happen again." We should pursue not state security but collective human security.
North Korea carried out its nuclear test, and Japan and the United States are emphasizing the US nuclear umbrella, but Japanese NGOs should call on the Japanese government so that Japan moves out of the US nuclear umbrella. In addition, Japan should oppose the US missile defense and cease participating in its research and development. Japan should abandon the idea that nuclear weapons provide security and begin talks on a Northeast Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone that includes Japan and the Korean Peninsula.
The US government should reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law and should fulfill its obligation under Article VI of the NPT, ratify the CTBT, and halt its development of nuclear weapons.
As members of NGOs and of civil society, our common interests transcend national borders and also go beyond cultural, ethnic, and religious differences. Interest focuses not on the security of our own states but on the collective human security of all people. Our job is not to limit ourselves to things that we think are politically achievable but to identify and demand what is really wanted. While pursuing the first responsibility of creating the political will for nuclear disarmament in our respective countries, we must look for ways to enable us to work together toward our common goal.

David Krieger
Negotiations relating to a treaty on the abolition of nuclear weapons have not taken place at all for 60 years, and the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva is not able to make any headway because of the consensus rule. The CTBT has not yet entered into effect, and talks on the FMCT have not started. The nuclear-weapon states have hardly implemented the 13 practical steps stipulated by the 2000 NPT Review Conference at all.
Regarding the fact that the nuclear-weapon states are not fulfilling their obligations, the 2006 report of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission states that confidence is being lost in the effectiveness of the NPT in nuclear nonproliferation as a result of the fact that the nuclear-weapon states are not fulfilling their obligations to promote nuclear disarmament.
As a result of the fact that the nuclear-weapon states are not pursuing negotiations on the abolition of nuclear weapons, proliferation is spreading further. This is the case for Israel and for India and Pakistan as well. By concluding a nuclear energy cooperation agreement with India, the United States itself is trying to change the rules of the NPT and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
North Korea has announced that it has conducted a nuclear test, and there is a possibility that this will lead to a dangerous nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia, including Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan. With regard to North Korea as well, the nuclear-weapon states are only drawing attention to the symptoms of the problem without touching on their own obligations; their thinking does not reach as far as the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that the nuclear-weapon states continue to possess these weapons of mass destruction and to depend on them.
When the nuclear-weapon states in this way do not fulfill their obligations to pursue negotiations faithfully toward the achievement of the abolition of nuclear weapons and behave unethically, illegally, and dangerously, what should the world do? I have no answer to this question, but I think that we can find one by moving ahead step by step. The worrying thing is that the urgency of the situation does not seem to be widely understood.
All of us should embrace this problem and embrace humanity. I would like to express my respect for the continued efforts of the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
With regard to the unproductive spectacle that is the arrogance and irrationality of nuclear weapons, we should believe that well-meaning people will overcome the destructive and dangerous technology that is in the hands of foolish, short-sighted, and incompetent national leaders.

Rebecca Johnson
Today the NPT is becoming weaker, but the treaty is essentially unstable because it stipulates different rights and obligations for nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states. Accordingly, as explained below, an integrated approach to disarmament is necessary.
(1) Strengthen the international laws and rules of the nonproliferation regime and establish more effective surveillance measures for observance and compliance.
(2) Halt the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons by both existing nuclear-weapon states and new nuclear-weapon states.
(3) Completely eliminate the use of nuclear weapons and, by doing so, strengthen the taboo and ban on the use of weapons of mass destruction already applied in chemical weapons and biological weapons.
(4) Request each nuclear-weapon state to formulate a consistent plan on how it will fulfill its obligations under the NPT and related treaties.
(5) Prohibit the production of plutonium and enriched uranium whether for military purposes or for civilian nuclear energy reactor purposes.
In order to build the foundation for the abolition of nuclear weapons, we should employ an approach based more on a consistent and common security. Integrated disarmament should place its foundation in the rule of law and should be advanced in parallel on the following three levels: horizontal proliferation, vertical proliferation, and the prevention of access to nuclear materials and nuclear weapons by states and non-state terrorists.
In order to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, it is necessary to lower the value of nuclear weapons. For this purpose, we should promote the worldwide adoption of the principle and promise to ban the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are political objects, so we should reduce that symbolic importance. Nuclear weapons are inhumane and unethical. We should move toward their abolition by sullying the name of nuclear weapons.
The promise to ban the use of nuclear weapons should be undertaken not only by the NPT nuclear-weapon states but also all nuclear-weapon states and, moreover, states that do not possess nuclear weapons.

Motofumi Asai
The real problem underlying the fact that not a single step of progress is being made toward the abolition of nuclear weapons and no progress can be seen in multilateral negotiations is the existence of the nuclear policy of the United States, which continues to follow a double standard with regard to nuclear weapons. The NPT regime is essentially a double standard, and the United States has pursued a double standard vis-?-vis allies and friendly countries on the one hand and rogue states on the other.
We should question this double standard of the United States and discuss how the international community can adopt a resolute attitude toward the US nuclear policy.
The nuclear test by North Korea should naturally be criticized, but it is also necessary to criticize the policy of the United States toward North Korea, which pushed North Korea into a position in which it had to carry out the nuclear test.
A more serious problem is that pushing North Korea into desperation increases the possibility of creating an excuse for regime change in North Korea through a preemptive strike by the United States, which could result in heavy damage in neighboring countries, including Japan.
As a nation that has already experienced nuclear disaster, we have continued the call for "No more Hiroshimas" and "No more Nagasakis," but the policy of the US administration of President George W. Bush could result in a fundamental denial of this appeal.
We should oppose North Korea's nuclear test, promote its return to the path of denuclearization, and urge the United States to respond to the direct dialogue that North Korea so fervently desires.
Regarding the Iran problem, we should think about what should be done to prevent it from being forced to choose the same road as North Korea because of the hard-line policy of the Bush administration.
What we need to give serious thought to now is an examination, without prejudice, of the opinions and standpoints of North Korea and Iran.
Regarding the NPT regime, we should reaffirm the achievements of the 2000 Review Conference, position that as a starting point for the 2010 meeting, and think about what should be done to create a situation in which the United States is forced to review its nuclear policy. In order to break away from the myth of nuclear deterrence, we should open up the prospect of targeting the United States.
Criticism should also be directed toward Japan's contradictory nuclear policy. Unless Japan ceases to depend on US nuclear deterrence, it will not be able to play a meaningful role in the worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons and multilateral negotiations for that purpose.

Fumihiko Yoshida
Under the NPT, states other than the five nuclear-weapon states promise that they will not possess nuclear weapons, and the five nuclear-weapon states promise to promote nuclear disarmament. In actuality, however, the nonproliferation policy has become distorted because of the geopolitical interests of the major countries.
In the case of Israel, France provided assistance at the initial stage, the United States virtually gave its tacit approval, and in 1969 the United States made a secret promise not to touch on the Israeli nuclear problem.
In the case of Iran, the main countries of the West cooperated in nuclear energy development under the Pahlavi administration, and after that Iran introduced parts related to uranium enrichment obtained from the black market. With the nuclear nonproliferation regime still incomplete, the United States leant toward the containment of Iran.
In the case of North Korea, the former Soviet Union provided assistance for the construction of nuclear-related facilities, and China offered nuclear energy cooperation and promoted technical exchange. North Korea became a party to the NPT in 1985, but before then the former Soviet Union provided cooperation for a long time.
In the case of India, the United States provided nuclear energy development cooperation from the 1950s, and in 1974 India conducted a nuclear test nominally for peaceful use. In Pakistan, countries such as China and France provided assistance for nuclear energy development. After that, technology and materials for nuclear development were purchased through the black-market network.
The above can be classified into three categories: (1) cases in which countries are still not parties to the NPT but have engaged in nuclear energy cooperation (India, Pakistan, Israel); (2) the case in which a country has promoted nuclear energy cooperation for a long time without being a party to the NPT (North Korea); and (3) the case in which a country has been making moves linked to the development of nuclear weapons behind the scenes while being a party to the NPT (Iran). The common feature of all of these cases is that, amid the entanglement of the interests of the major powers, they all weaken the drive to promote the NPT's universal application.
As issues from now on, (1) the relaxation of regional tension and building of regional confidence through diplomatic means are essential; (2) non-nuclear-weapon zones, which now cover almost all of the Southern Hemisphere, must be extended in the Northern Hemisphere as well; and (3) it is necessary to strengthen international management of the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Discussions
After these reports by the panelists, discussions began among the panelists, who agreed in their analysis of present conditions, such as the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament, the weakening of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, and the fact that in the United States the use of nuclear weapons is considered to be a part of actual strategy. In particular, it was made clear that the basis of international security itself is being endangered by the broad application of a double standard by the Bush administration in the United States.
Regarding what should be done toward the abolition of nuclear weapons, the panelists offered various proposals, and discussions proceeded concerning them. After that, many questions and opinions were taken from the floor, and the discussions continued with regard to them.
As the general flow of the discussions, the recognition was shared that even if there are no immediate and effective means to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, it is important to continue moving ahead step by step toward their abolition. With regard to the international community, and especially nuclear-weapon states, the importance was stressed of urging states that have not signed or ratified the CTBT to do so as soon as possible and, regarding the FMCT, of calling for the early start of negotiations and conclusion of a treaty.
In particular, the opinion was given that since the nuclear policy of the Bush administration in the United States directly conflicts with the abolition of nuclear weapons and conversely is damaging the stability of the world, we should think about what should be done to change US policy, especially its policy resulting from the employment of a double standard.
Another opinion stated that while it is necessary to strengthen the weakened NPT regime, the NPT itself is basically discriminatory. The objective is not the strengthening of the NPT itself but the promotion of nuclear nonproliferation premised on the abolition of nuclear weapons. While the strengthening of the NPT is important as a means to achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons, it is not itself the goal.
In connection with this, the comment was made that we should promote a ban on the use of plutonium and enriched uranium even in nuclear energy for peaceful use.
Regarding the Japanese government, the opinion was given that Japan's nuclear policy of calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons while remaining under the US nuclear umbrella is deceptive and that Japan should come out of the US nuclear umbrella.
Toward the abolition of nuclear weapons, the most important thing is to greatly lower the political and military significance and meaning of nuclear weapons. As the first means to this end, it was emphasized that we should strive to ban the use of nuclear weapons and that efforts should be made so that countries declare a ban on the use of nuclear weapons.
In particular, so far the appeal that nuclear weapons are weapons that cannot be used and horrific weapons has been made mainly by the hibakusha, but from now on that appeal should be made even more loudly. The necessity was discussed of spreading the general understanding that the possession of nuclear weapons is militarily not advantageous, morally wrong, and politically a negative factor.
As NGOs, it was remarked that we should consider and implement various methods to lower the military and political value of nuclear weapons, shift the core of thinking from the present situation in which top priority is placed on state security to an emphasis on human security, and recognize the present situation in which nuclear weapons are not only useless in promoting individual human security but conversely actually endanger individual human beings.