Aktuell‎ > ‎


Aktuelle Mitteilungen

  • We owe it to our children to end the nuclear age The Hill. By Andreas Nidecker, Emilie Gaillard and Alyn Ware, opinion contributors The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill Foto: Emilie Gailard ...
    Veröffentlicht um 18.01.2018, 23:53 von Claudia Bürgler
  • Nobel Lecture given by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2017, ICAN, delivered by Beatrice Fihn and Setsuko Thurlow, Oslo, 10 December 2017. www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2017/ican-lecture_en.html[Beatrice Fihn:] Your Majesties, Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Esteemed guests, Today, it is a great honour ...
    Veröffentlicht um 13.12.2017, 00:18 von Claudia Bürgler
  • ICAN erhält den Friedensnobelpreis PSR/IPPNW Schweiz gratuliert ICAN herzlich zum Friedensnobelpreis. Möge der Preis, den Weg zu einer Atomwaffenfreien Welt beschleunigen und viele zusätzliche Länder, auch die Schweiz, dazu bewegen, den Vertrag über ...
    Veröffentlicht um 16.10.2017, 01:18 von Claudia Bürgler
  • Menschenrechte, künftige Generationen und Verbrechen im Atomzeitalter PSR / IPPNW (Internationale ÄrztInnen für die Verhütung eines Atomkrieges) Schweiz, SAFNA (Schweizer Anwälte für Nukleare Abrüstung), Basel Peace Office, U-Network Deutschland und CIDCE (Centre International de Droit Comparé de ...
    Veröffentlicht um 18.09.2017, 03:54 von Claudia Bürgler
  • Die Elimination von Atomwaffen Auch eine ärztliche Verpflichtung Jean-Jacques Fasnacht Dr. med., Präsident PSR/IPPNW Schweiz, SAEZ 2017;98(36):1136–1137Das nukleare Säbelrasseln ist gleichermassen unüberhörbar wie auch überaus beunruhigend. Nordkoreanische Provokationen loten die amerikanischen ...
    Veröffentlicht um 07.09.2017, 08:21 von Claudia Bürgler
Beiträge 1 - 5 von 51 werden angezeigt. Weitere anzeigen »

We owe it to our children to end the nuclear age

veröffentlicht um 18.01.2018, 23:50 von Claudia Bürgler   [ aktualisiert: 18.01.2018, 23:53 ]

Emilie Gaillard, Congress, September 2017, Basel
The Hill. By Andreas Nidecker, Emilie Gaillard and Alyn Ware, opinion contributors The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Foto: Emilie Gailard. Congress "Human Rihts, Future Generations and Crimes in the Nuclear Age", September 2017, Basel.

As nuclear tensions increase, dangerous times have raised legally-loaded questions about nuclear weapons. Should the U.S. violate or undermine the Iran nuclear deal? Does the president have unfettered power to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea? What's the legal status of the Trump administration's intention, telegraphed in the newly leaked Nuclear Posture Review, to expand U.S. nuclear capabilities and arsenals when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty supposedly commits us to cutting and eventually eliminating them?

But there’s an even broader legal dilemma looming over production, testing and threatened use of nuclear weapons: how they affect the human rights of future generations. Those threats to the future are also compounded by nuclear energy, which generates radioactive waste we’re manifestly unable to control, and by destabilizing the climate that has enabled and sustained human civilization.  

Can such crimes against the future be legal? How can we respect the human rights of future generations in view of them? International symposia at the University of Basel (Switzerland), University of Caen (France) and Charles University in Prague (Czech Republic) recently grappled with those questions. The Basel conference produced a declaration on human rights and trans-generational crimes resulting from nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.

Protecting future generations from the threat of nuclear weapons was an important consideration in the International Court of Justice’s 1996 affirmation that threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal, given their long-term and indiscriminate impact. But despite the Court’s decision, most nuclear-armed states retain (illegal) policies to use nuclear weapons, including in a first, pre-emptive strike.

In general, current law fails to safeguard the rights of future generations. But that doesn’t make failure defensible, sustainable or in accord with legal principles. Evolution of this area of law is necessary and inevitable.

Some 2000 nuclear weapons were detonated for “testing” since 1945, releasing millions of curies of radiation. This impacted human health globally, and will continue to do so for generations.  Most nuclear testing victims live in remote areas like the Pacific islands, the Kazakhstan steppe, or the North African Sahara. They have largely been forgotten; today’s younger generations are unaware of their sacrifice. Yet forgetting is perilous, because today’s youth will be tomorrow’s victims unless the cycle is broken.

There are some legal efforts to break it. For example, the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons obligates signatories to provide environmental remediation and assistance for nuclear testing victims. But the provision is unenforceable, because none of the nine nuclear weapons states signed the treaty.

Like nuclear weapons, nuclear energy also poses enduring threats to human health. The Chernobyl explosion caused widespread contamination across the region and the whole European continent. High volumes of radiologically contaminated water from Fukushima continue to leak into the Pacific.

These, too, are crimes against the future. Some lethal isotopes in nuclear waste have half-lives of thousands of years. Waste repositories will need to be guarded for unimaginable time periods, with associated financial, logistical and security implications for future societies, an enormous burden we leave to our descendants.

Like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) asserts a human right to health, applicable to nuclear contamination. But in practice that right isn’t respected.

For example, Japan ratified the covenant, and the Japanese constitution even defends the trans-generational principle of human rights in articles 11 and 97. But despite those legal principles being articulated, the Japanese media is still prevented from reporting on current events in Fukushima, and medical research on the effects of the meltdown is still restricted. The Japanese government maintains that small amounts of radiation are harmless, so limits for public radiation exposure could be increased from 1 to 20 millisieverts per year, the same as for radiation workers.

That’s unconscionable and untenable, not to mention discriminatory against young women and children who are much more susceptible to radiation exposure than men, with higher risks of cancer and non-cancerous diseases. Radiation exposure may present mutations and diseases in their offspring decades later. That’s why Japan’s handling of the Fukushima fails to accord with its own constitution as well as the ICESCR.

Failing to combat climate change effectively is also a crime against the future. The chances of meeting the Paris goal of limiting global warming to 2°C are receding since the U.S. withdrew and financial contributions of many signatories remain out of scale with the problem. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen in the two years since the Paris accord. If we stay on this too-little, too-late trajectory, we’ll not only fail to protect human rights, but much of life on earth.

Can all this be considered legal? Not for long. The dawn of the nuclear age marked the acquisition of unprecedented human power over the earth and all forms of life, as the Caen symposium pointed out. Many legal experts believe that in this new anthropocene era, a new code of medical and legal ethics is necessary. Trans-generational impacts of nuclear war, nuclear catastrophes and climate change must now be seriously considered, and require a paradigm shift in our legal thinking about the future.

The District Court of Hague took a step in that direction in 2015 when it affirmed in Urgenda Foundation v. the Dutch State that the government had a responsibility to protect future generations by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. A similar case in the United States — People v Climate Change — was granted jurisdiction and is proceeding to consideration of its merits.



Nobel Lecture given by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2017, ICAN, delivered by Beatrice Fihn and Setsuko Thurlow, Oslo, 10 December 2017.

veröffentlicht um 13.12.2017, 00:18 von Claudia Bürgler


[Beatrice Fihn:]

Your Majesties,
Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee,
Esteemed guests,

Today, it is a great honour to accept the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of thousands of inspirational people who make up the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

Together we have brought democracy to disarmament and are reshaping international law.

We most humbly thank the Norwegian Nobel Committee for recognizing our work and giving momentum to our crucial cause.

We want to recognize those who have so generously donated their time and energy to this campaign.

We thank the courageous foreign ministers, diplomats, Red Cross and Red Crescent staff, UN officials, academics and experts with whom we have worked in partnership to advance our common goal.

And we thank all who are committed to ridding the world of this terrible threat.

At dozens of locations around the world - in missile silos buried in our earth, on submarines navigating through our oceans, and aboard planes flying high in our sky - lie 15,000 objects of humankind's destruction.

Perhaps it is the enormity of this fact, perhaps it is the unimaginable scale of the consequences, that leads many to simply accept this grim reality. To go about our daily lives with no thought to the instruments of insanity all around us.

For it is insanity to allow ourselves to be ruled by these weapons. Many critics of this movement suggest that we are the irrational ones, the idealists with no grounding in reality. That nuclear-armed states will never give up their weapons.

But we represent the only rational choice. We represent those who refuse to accept nuclear weapons as a fixture in our world, those who refuse to have their fates bound up in a few lines of launch code.

Ours is the only reality that is possible. The alternative is unthinkable.

The story of nuclear weapons will have an ending, and it is up to us what that ending will be.

Will it be the end of nuclear weapons, or will it be the end of us?

One of these things will happen.

The only rational course of action is to cease living under the conditions where our mutual destruction is only one impulsive tantrum away.

Today I want to talk of three things: fear, freedom, and the future.

By the very admission of those who possess them, the real utility of nuclear weapons is in their ability to provoke fear. When they refer to their "deterrent" effect, proponents of nuclear weapons are celebrating fear as a weapon of war.

They are puffing their chests by declaring their preparedness to exterminate, in a flash, countless thousands of human lives.

Nobel Laureate William Faulkner said when accepting his prize in 1950, that "There is only the question of 'when will I be blown up?'" But since then, this universal fear has given way to something even more dangerous: denial.

Gone is the fear of Armageddon in an instant, gone is the equilibrium between two blocs that was used as the justification for deterrence, gone are the fallout shelters.

But one thing remains: the thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads that filled us up with that fear.

The risk for nuclear weapons use is even greater today than at the end of the Cold War. But unlike the Cold War, today we face many more nuclear armed states, terrorists, and cyber warfare. All of this makes us less safe.

Learning to live with these weapons in blind acceptance has been our next great mistake.

Fear is rational. The threat is real. We have avoided nuclear war not through prudent leadership but good fortune. Sooner or later, if we fail to act, our luck will run out.

A moment of panic or carelessness, a misconstrued comment or bruised ego, could easily lead us unavoidably to the destruction of entire cities. A calculated military escalation could lead to the indiscriminate mass murder of civilians.

If only a small fraction of today's nuclear weapons were used, soot and smoke from the firestorms would loft high into the atmosphere - cooling, darkening and drying the Earth's surface for more than a decade.

It would obliterate food crops, putting billions at risk of starvation.

Yet we continue to live in denial of this existential threat.

But Faulkner in his Nobel speech also issued a challenge to those who came after him. Only by being the voice of humanity, he said, can we defeat fear; can we help humanity endure.

ICAN's duty is to be that voice. The voice of humanity and humanitarian law; to speak up on behalf of civilians. Giving voice to that humanitarian perspective is how we will create the end of fear, the end of denial. And ultimately, the end of nuclear weapons.

That brings me to my second point: freedom.

As the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the first ever anti-nuclear weapons organisation to win this prize, said on this stage in 1985:

"We physicians protest the outrage of holding the entire world hostage. We protest the moral obscenity that each of us is being continuously targeted for extinction."

Those words still ring true in 2017.

We must reclaim the freedom to not live our lives as hostages to imminent annihilation.

Man - not woman! - made nuclear weapons to control others, but instead we are controlled by them.

They made us false promises. That by making the consequences of using these weapons so unthinkable it would make any conflict unpalatable. That it would keep us free from war.

But far from preventing war, these weapons brought us to the brink multiple times throughout the Cold War. And in this century, these weapons continue to escalate us towards war and conflict.

In Iraq, in Iran, in Kashmir, in North Korea. Their existence propels others to join the nuclear race. They don't keep us safe, they cause conflict.

As fellow Nobel Peace Laureate, Martin Luther King Jr, called them from this very stage in 1964, these weapons are "both genocidal and suicidal".

They are the madman's gun held permanently to our temple. These weapons were supposed to keep us free, but they deny us our freedoms.

It's an affront to democracy to be ruled by these weapons. But they are just weapons. They are just tools. And just as they were created by geopolitical context, they can just as easily be destroyed by placing them in a humanitarian context.

That is the task ICAN has set itself - and my third point I wish to talk about, the future.

I have the honour of sharing this stage today with Setsuko Thurlow, who has made it her life's purpose to bear witness to the horror of nuclear war.

She and the hibakusha were at the beginning of the story, and it is our collective challenge to ensure they will also witness the end of it.

They relive the painful past, over and over again, so that we may create a better future.

There are hundreds of organisations that together as ICAN are making great strides towards that future.

There are thousands of tireless campaigners around the world who work each day to rise to that challenge.

There are millions of people across the globe who have stood shoulder to shoulder with those campaigners to show hundreds of millions more that a different future is truly possible.

Those who say that future is not possible need to get out of the way of those making it a reality.

As the culmination of this grassroots effort, through the action of ordinary people, this year the hypothetical marched forward towards the actual as 122 nations negotiated and concluded a UN treaty to outlaw these weapons of mass destruction.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides the pathway forward at a moment of great global crisis. It is a light in a dark time.

And more than that, it provides a choice.

A choice between the two endings: the end of nuclear weapons or the end of us.

It is not naive to believe in the first choice. It is not irrational to think nuclear states can disarm. It is not idealistic to believe in life over fear and destruction; it is a necessity.

All of us face that choice. And I call on every nation to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

The United States, choose freedom over fear.
Russia, choose disarmament over destruction.
Britain, choose the rule of law over oppression.
France, choose human rights over terror.
China, choose reason over irrationality.
India, choose sense over senselessness.
Pakistan, choose logic over Armageddon.
Israel, choose common sense over obliteration.
North Korea, choose wisdom over ruin.

To the nations who believe they are sheltered under the umbrella of nuclear weapons, will you be complicit in your own destruction and the destruction of others in your name?

To all nations: choose the end of nuclear weapons over the end of us!

This is the choice that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons represents. Join this Treaty.

We citizens are living under the umbrella of falsehoods. These weapons are not keeping us safe, they are contaminating our land and water, poisoning our bodies and holding hostage our right to life.

To all citizens of the world: Stand with us and demand your government side with humanity and sign this treaty. We will not rest until all States have joined, on the side of reason.

No nation today boasts of being a chemical weapon state.
No nation argues that it is acceptable, in extreme circumstances, to use sarin nerve agent.
No nation proclaims the right to unleash on its enemy the plague or polio.

That is because international norms have been set, perceptions have been changed.

And now, at last, we have an unequivocal norm against nuclear weapons.

Monumental strides forward never begin with universal agreement.

With every new signatory and every passing year, this new reality will take hold.

This is the way forward. There is only one way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons: prohibit and eliminate them.

Nuclear weapons, like chemical weapons, biological weapons, cluster munitions and land mines before them, are now illegal. Their existence is immoral. Their abolishment is in our hands.

The end is inevitable. But will that end be the end of nuclear weapons or the end of us? We must choose one.

We are a movement for rationality. For democracy. For freedom from fear.

We are campaigners from 468 organisations who are working to safeguard the future, and we are representative of the moral majority: the billions of people who choose life over death, who together will see the end of nuclear weapons.

Thank you.


[Setsuko Thurlow :]

Your Majesties,
Distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee,
My fellow campaigners, here and throughout the world,
Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great privilege to accept this award, together with Beatrice, on behalf of all the remarkable human beings who form the ICAN movement. You each give me such tremendous hope that we can - and will - bring the era of nuclear weapons to an end.

I speak as a member of the family of hibakusha - those of us who, by some miraculous chance, survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For more than seven decades, we have worked for the total abolition of nuclear weapons.

We have stood in solidarity with those harmed by the production and testing of these horrific weapons around the world. People from places with long-forgotten names, like Moruroa, Ekker, Semipalatinsk, Maralinga, Bikini. People whose lands and seas were irradiated, whose bodies were experimented upon, whose cultures were forever disrupted.

We were not content to be victims. We refused to wait for an immediate fiery end or the slow poisoning of our world. We refused to sit idly in terror as the so-called great powers took us past nuclear dusk and brought us recklessly close to nuclear midnight. We rose up. We shared our stories of survival. We said: humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.

Today, I want you to feel in this hall the presence of all those who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I want you to feel, above and around us, a great cloud of a quarter million souls. Each person had a name. Each person was loved by someone. Let us ensure that their deaths were not in vain.

I was just 13 years old when the United States dropped the first atomic bomb, on my city Hiroshima. I still vividly remember that morning. At 8:15, I saw a blinding bluish-white flash from the window. I remember having the sensation of floating in the air.

As I regained consciousness in the silence and darkness, I found myself pinned by the collapsed building. I began to hear my classmates' faint cries: "Mother, help me. God, help me."

Then, suddenly, I felt hands touching my left shoulder, and heard a man saying: "Don't give up! Keep pushing! I am trying to free you. See the light coming through that opening? Crawl towards it as quickly as you can." As I crawled out, the ruins were on fire. Most of my classmates in that building were burned to death alive. I saw all around me utter, unimaginable devastation.

Processions of ghostly figures shuffled by. Grotesquely wounded people, they were bleeding, burnt, blackened and swollen. Parts of their bodies were missing. Flesh and skin hung from their bones. Some with their eyeballs hanging in their hands. Some with their bellies burst open, their intestines hanging out. The foul stench of burnt human flesh filled the air.

Thus, with one bomb my beloved city was obliterated. Most of its residents were civilians who were incinerated, vaporized, carbonized - among them, members of my own family and 351 of my schoolmates.

In the weeks, months and years that followed, many thousands more would die, often in random and mysterious ways, from the delayed effects of radiation. Still to this day, radiation is killing survivors.

Whenever I remember Hiroshima, the first image that comes to mind is of my four-year-old nephew, Eiji - his little body transformed into an unrecognizable melted chunk of flesh. He kept begging for water in a faint voice until his death released him from agony.

To me, he came to represent all the innocent children of the world, threatened as they are at this very moment by nuclear weapons. Every second of every day, nuclear weapons endanger everyone we love and everything we hold dear. We must not tolerate this insanity any longer.

Through our agony and the sheer struggle to survive - and to rebuild our lives from the ashes - we hibakusha became convinced that we must warn the world about these apocalyptic weapons. Time and again, we shared our testimonies.

But still some refused to see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as atrocities - as war crimes. They accepted the propaganda that these were "good bombs" that had ended a "just war". It was this myth that led to the disastrous nuclear arms race - a race that continues to this day.

Nine nations still threaten to incinerate entire cities, to destroy life on earth, to make our beautiful world uninhabitable for future generations. The development of nuclear weapons signifies not a country's elevation to greatness, but its descent to the darkest depths of depravity. These weapons are not a necessary evil; they are the ultimate evil.

On the seventh of July this year, I was overwhelmed with joy when a great majority of the world's nations voted to adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Having witnessed humanity at its worst, I witnessed, that day, humanity at its best. We hibakusha had been waiting for the ban for seventy-two years. Let this be the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.

All responsible leaders will sign this treaty. And history will judge harshly those who reject it. No longer shall their abstract theories mask the genocidal reality of their practices. No longer shall "deterrence" be viewed as anything but a deterrent to disarmament. No longer shall we live under a mushroom cloud of fear.

To the officials of nuclear-armed nations - and to their accomplices under the so-called "nuclear umbrella" - I say this: Listen to our testimony. Heed our warning. And know that your actions are consequential. You are each an integral part of a system of violence that is endangering humankind. Let us all be alert to the banality of evil.

To every president and prime minister of every nation of the world, I beseech you: Join this treaty; forever eradicate the threat of nuclear annihilation.

When I was a 13-year-old girl, trapped in the smouldering rubble, I kept pushing. I kept moving toward the light. And I survived. Our light now is the ban treaty. To all in this hall and all listening around the world, I repeat those words that I heard called to me in the ruins of Hiroshima: "Don't give up! Keep pushing! See the light? Crawl towards it."

Tonight, as we march through the streets of Oslo with torches aflame, let us follow each other out of the dark night of nuclear terror. No matter what obstacles we face, we will keep moving and keep pushing and keep sharing this light with others. This is our passion and commitment for our one precious world to survive.

ICAN erhält den Friedensnobelpreis

veröffentlicht um 16.10.2017, 01:18 von Claudia Bürgler

PSR/IPPNW Schweiz gratuliert ICAN herzlich zum Friedensnobelpreis. Möge der Preis, den Weg zu einer Atomwaffenfreien Welt beschleunigen und viele zusätzliche Länder, auch die Schweiz, dazu bewegen, den Vertrag über das Verbot von Atomwaffen jetzt zu unterschreiben. (IPPNW International ist eine der Gründerorganisationen der ICAN Kampagne, PSR/IPPNW Schweiz ist Partner-Organisation der ICAN-Schweiz).

Mitteilung der ICAN, 6.10.2017

Es ist eine grosse Ehre den Friedensnobelpreis 2017 als Anerkennung für unsere Rolle im Prozess, der im Vertrag über das Verbot von Atomwaffen gipfelte, zu erhalten. Dieses historische Übereinkommen, das am 7. Juli mit der Unterstützung von 122 Staaten verabschiedet wurde, ist ein starkes und dringend nötiges Zeichen dafür, dass es eine Alternative gibt zu einer Welt, in der man sich mit dem Einsatz von Atomwaffen bedroht.

Die Internationale Kampagne für die Abschaffung von Atomwaffen (ICAN) ist eine Koalition von Nichtregierungsorganisationen aus 100 Ländern. Wir haben auf die Kraft der Zivilgesellschaft gesetzt und es ist uns gelungen, der destruktivsten aller Waffen, die je erfunden wurden, einen Riegel vorzuschieben – die einzige Waffe von der eine existentielle Bedrohung für die Menschheit ausgeht.

Der Friedensnobelpreis ehrt die unermüdlichen Anstrengungen von Millionen von Aktivistinnen und betroffenen Bürgern, die seit Anbruch der nuklearen Ära, gegen Atomwaffen protestiert haben. Sie haben darauf beharrt, dass Atomwaffen keine legitime Funktion erfüllen können und für immer vom Antlitz der Erde verbannt werden müssen.

Er ehrt auch die Überlebenden der Atomwaffenabwürfe über Hiroshima und Nagasaki – die hibakusha – und die Opfer von Atomwaffentests, deren ergreifende Erlebnisberichte und unermüdlicher Einsatz eine wesentliche Rolle in der Erarbeitung dieses historischen Übereinkommens spielten.

Der Vertrag verbietet die schlimmste aller Massenvernichtungswaffen vollumfänglich und gibt die Marschrichtung für ihre Abschaffung vor. Er ist die Antwort auf die immer tiefere Besorgnis der internationalen Gemeinschaft über die katastrophalen Auswirkungen, die weit verbreiteten und langanhaltenden Schäden für Mensch und Umwelt, die von einem Atomwaffeneinsatz verursacht würden.

Wir sind stolz auf die zentrale Rolle, die wir durch unser Engagement und die Teilnahme an Regierungskonferenzen in seiner Entstehung hatten, und wir werden uns in den kommenden Jahren gewissenhaft für seine vollständige Umsetzung einsetzen. Jedes Land, das nach einer friedlicheren Welt strebt, frei von nuklearer Bedrohung, wird diesem entscheidenden Vertrag ohne Verzug beitreten.

Die Schweiz, ein Land mit einer langen humanitären Tradition, hat an den Verhandlungen teilgenommen und für den Schlusstext gestimmt. Jetzt muss sie dem Vertrag so bald wie möglich beitreten.

Die unter gewissen Regierungen verbreitete Ansicht, Atomwaffen leisteten einen legitimen und unverzichtbaren Sicherheitsbeitrag, ist nicht nur fehlgeleitet, sondern auch gefährlich, weil sie zur Weiterverbreitung von Atomwaffen anstiftet und Abrüstungsbestreben unterwandert. Alle Länder sollten diesen Waffen entschieden den Rücken kehren – bevor sie je wieder eingesetzt werden.

Wir leben in einer Zeit grosser globaler Spannungen, in der feurige Rhetorik allzu einfach und erbarmungslos zu unsäglichem Grauen führen kann. Das Schreckgespenst eines nuklearen Krieges schwebt einmal mehr über uns. Nie war es so wichtig wie heute, sich unmissverständlich gegen Atomwaffen auszusprechen.

Wir zollen allen Staaten, die den Vertrag über das Verbot von Atomwaffen bereits unterzeichnet oder ratifiziert haben Beifall, und fordern alle anderen dazu auf, ihrem Beispiel Folge zu leisten. Der Vertrag bietet einen Ausweg in einer Zeit von beängstigenden Krisen. Abrüstung ist kein Wunschtraum, sondern eine dringende humanitäre Notwendigkeit.

Wir bedanken uns aufrichtig beim Norwegischen Nobelkomitee. Dieser Preis beleuchtet den vom Verbotsvertrag gewiesene Weg zu einer nuklearwaffenfreien Welt. Wir müssen diesen Weg beschreiten, bevor es zu spät ist.

Menschenrechte, künftige Generationen und Verbrechen im Atomzeitalter

veröffentlicht um 18.09.2017, 01:33 von Claudia Bürgler   [ aktualisiert: 18.09.2017, 03:54 ]

PSR / IPPNW (Internationale ÄrztInnen für die Verhütung eines Atomkrieges) Schweiz, SAFNA (Schweizer Anwälte für Nukleare Abrüstung), Basel Peace Office, U-Network Deutschland und CIDCE (Centre International de Droit Comparé de l’Environnement) Frankreich haben vom 14. – 17. September an der Universität Basel einen Kongress zum Thema „Menschenrechte, künftige Generationen und Verbrechen im Atomzeitalter“ durchgeführt. Es wurde festgestellt, dass die Anwendung von Atomwaffen schwerste Auswirkungen vor allem für die Zivilgesellschaft hätte. Die Folgen müssten als massive Menschenrechtsverletzungen, Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit gemäss dem Römer Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs angesehen werden. Zudem

wurde der vielen hunderttausend Opfer der beiden Atombomben in Hiroshima und Nagasaki und der mehreren tausend Atomtests in allen Kontinenten gedacht. Diese Menschen, aber auch die Geschädigten von Atomkatastrophen wie in Mayak 1957, Sellafield 1957, Tschernobyl 1986 und Fukushima 2011 wurden teilweise nie über die wahren Ursachen der Katastrophen und deren gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen informiert. Moderne wissenschaftliche Recherchen zeigen, dass Dokumente von Regierungen oft vernichtet wurden. Auch werden Nachforschungen zur laufenden Atomkatastrophe in Japan gesetzlich verboten. So erreichen betroffene Länder, dass epidemiologische Studien behindert oder verunmöglicht werden und die Entschädigung von Opfern erschwert wird. Es besteht somit ein grosser Bedarf einer gesetzlichen Verankerung der Menschenrechte auf Information und gerechter Kompensation der Opfer.

Im gleichen Kontext wurden auch Fragen der Verletzung von Menschenrechten künftiger Generationen diskutiert: Diese tragen die Risiken eines Atomkriegs, verbunden mit den gesundheitlichen Risiken der fortschreitenden globalen Verseuchung durch radioaktive Substanzen der Umwelt. Ebenso werden unsere Nachkommen massgeblich die finanziellen Lasten des Rückbaus von Atomkraftwerken und der sicheren Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle schultern. Deshalb müssen nicht nur unsere, sondern auch die Rechte künftiger Generationen anerkannt und gesetzlich abgesichert werden.

photo: Mark Niedermann Photography Basel / Switzerland

Mehr Infos: /https://www.events-swiss-ippnw.org/

Die Elimination von Atomwaffen Auch eine ärztliche Verpflichtung

veröffentlicht um 07.09.2017, 08:14 von Claudia Bürgler   [ aktualisiert: 07.09.2017, 08:21 ]

Jean-Jacques Fasnacht Dr. med., Präsident PSR/IPPNW Schweiz, SAEZ 2017;98(36):1136–1137

Das nukleare Säbelrasseln ist gleichermassen unüberhörbar wie auch überaus beunruhigend. Nordkoreanische Provokationen loten die amerikanischen und
internationalen Toleranzgrenzen aus, Nordkoreas Regime und der US-Präsident üben sich in gefährlicher und unverhohlener Kriegsrhetorik, Pakistan und Indien stehen sich unverändert feindlich und zu einem regionalen atomaren Waffengang bestens gerüstet gegenüber, und die Reduktion der Atomwaffenbestände der letzten Jahre wird durch die teure Modernisierung
des Waffenarsenals mehr als nur wettgemacht [1, 2]. Es stellt sich die bange Frage,
welches Ereignis diese tödliche Maschinerie in Gang setzen könnte.

Ganzer Originalartikel im Anhang als PDF

Grusswort aus Heiden AR an die Hiroshima-Gedenkveranstaltung vom 6. August in Wien sowie Läuten der «Peace-Bell» in Heiden am 9. August 2017

veröffentlicht um 04.08.2017, 04:15 von Claudia Bürgler

Aus Heiden AR wurde ein Grusswort verschiedener Organisationen an eine Hiroshima-Gedenkveranstaltung gerichtet, die am nächsten Sonntag, 6. August 2017 in Wien stattfindet. Erstmals taten sich die Gemeinde Heiden, das dortige Dunant-Museum, der Verein Dunant+, die 
ÄrztInnen für soziale Verantwortung und zur Verhütung eines Atomkrieges (PSR/IPPNW Schweiz) sowie der Schweizerische Friedensrat aus Zürich zu einer öffentlichen gemeinsamen Stellungnahme zusammen (siehe Anhang als PDF und Text unten).

Im Zentrum der Grussbotschaft steht dabei der u.a. auf Initiative unseres Nachbarland Österreich initiierte Vertrag über das Verbot von Kernwaffen, den die UNO-Generalversammlung am 7. Juli 2017 angenommen hat – ein für den jahrzehntelangen Kampf von Friedensorganisationen historischer Schritt. Die Schweiz hat zwar nach einigem Zögern für den Vertrag gestimmt, doch ist noch keineswegs sicher, dass sie dem Verbotsvertrag selber beitreten wird.

In der Schweiz wird am Nagasaki-Gedenktag vom 9. August 2017 beim Dunant-Museum in Heiden die «Peace-Bell» geläutet (Veranstaltungshinweis als PDF anliegend).

Informationen zum Nagasaki-Gedenktag vom 9. August in Heiden erteilen:

Norbert Näf, Präsident des Dunant-Museums in Heiden, Tel. 078 850 27 27

Gallus Pfister, Gemeindepräsident von Heiden AR, Tel. 076 388 58 69

Hansjörg Ritter, Präsident des Vereins Dunant2010+, Tel. 079 406 83 80

Urs Peter Frey, Delegierter Ostschweiz der ÄrztInnen für soziale Verantwortung und zur Verhütung eines Atomkrieges (PSR/IPPNW Schweiz), Tel. 079 779 02 31

Auskünfte zum Kernwaffenverbots-Vertrag erteilt gerne:

Peter Weishaupt, Geschäftsführer Schweizerischer Friedensrat, Zürich,

info@friedensrat.ch, Tel. 078 693 10 85

Grusswort aus Heiden

an die Hiroshima-Gedenkveranstaltung 2017 in Wien

Heiden im Appenzeller Vorderland, hoch über dem Bodensee, ist eine relativ kleine Gemeinde. Das hindert sie nicht an einer historischen Verbindung mit dem internationalen Genf – durch den Gründer des Roten Kreuzes und Friedensnobelpreisträger Henry Dunant, der seinen Lebensabend von 1887 bis 1910 im Biedermeier-Dorf verbrachte. Heiden pflegt diese Beziehung mit dem Dunant-Museum und vielfältigen Anlässen.

Diese Aktivität wurde belohnt von der Universität Nagasaki, die dem Dunant-Museum 2009 eine «Peace-Bell» geschenkt hat. Das ist eine Kopie der Angelus-Glocke in der Urakami-Kirche, die beinahe unbeschädigt den Atombomben-Abwurf auf Nagasaki überstanden hat. Seither führen die unterzeichnenden Institutionen und Organisationen regelmässig am 9. August einen Gedenkanlass durch, bei dem um 11.02 Uhr die Peace-Bell geläutet wird.

Wir entbieten Euch solidarische Grüsse zu den Gedenkveranstaltungen für Hiroshima am 6. August und für Nagasaki am 9. August. Wir freuen uns mit Euch, dass die Initiative von Österreich und vier weiteren Staaten am 7. Juli 2017 zur Annahme des «Vertrags über das Verbot von Kernwaffen» durch die UNO-Generalversammlung geführt hat. IKRK-Präsident Peter Maurer freute sich über den Beschluss; er sei ein historischer Schritt, um den Atomwaffen die letzte Legitimation zu entziehen, womit eine entscheidende Grundlage für ihre künftige Beseitigung geschaffen worden sei.

Nach anfänglichem Zögern hat sich die Schweiz auch aktiv an den Verhandlungen beteiligt und am 7. Juli für den Vertrag gestimmt. Das bedeutet aber nicht automatisch, dass die Schweiz dem Verbotsvertrag auch beitreten wird. Dafür ist noch Lobbyarbeit notwendig, an der wir uns im Rahmen unserer Möglichkeiten beteiligen werden. Dies wird in erster Linie die Aufgabe von PSR/IPPNW und SFR sein.

Wir hoffen, in einer der nächsten Grussbotschaften von der Ratifikation des Vertrags über das Verbot von Kernwaffen durch die Schweiz berichten zu können. Jetzt aber freuen wir uns mit Euch, dass der Beschluss der UNO-Generalversammlung am 7. Juli möglich geworden ist.

Gemeinde Heiden, Gallus Pfister, Gemeindepräsident

Dunant Museum, Norbert Näf, Präsident

Verein Dunant2010+, Hansjörg Ritter, Präsident

ÄrztInnen für soziale Verantwortung und zur Verhütung eines Atomkrieges (PSR/IPPNW Schweiz), Dr. med. Urs-Peter Frey, Delegierter der Regionalgruppe Ostschweiz

Schweizerischer Friedensrat (SFR), Ruedi Tobler, Präsident

Schweizerischer Friedensrat SFR
Swiss Peace Council
Gartenhofstr. 7
8004 Zürich

0041 (0)44 242 93 21

The U.N. just passed a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons. That actually matters.

veröffentlicht um 19.07.2017, 00:46 von Claudia Bürgler

Washington Post. By Nina Tannenwald
July 17

On July 7, the United Nations adopted the first treaty imposing a total ban on nuclear weapons. This Nuclear Prohibition Treaty covers all aspects of nuclear weapons, including their use and threat of use, testing, development, possession, sharing and stationing in a different country. It provides a pathway for countries with nuclear weapons to join and destroy their nuclear arsenals. One hundred twenty-two nations — all non-nuclear — voted to adopt the treaty. Only the Netherlands voted against doing so, and Singapore abstained.

But the nine nuclear-armed countries — Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States — boycotted the negotiations. So did all NATO members (except the Netherlands) as well as Japan and South Korea, all of which are protected by U.S. nuclear weapons. Although there was jubilation in the negotiating hall after the successful vote, the United States, Britain and France announced in a joint statement, saying, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it. … clearly disregards the realities of the international security environment,” including the growing threat of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.

[The U.S. wants to stop North Korean missiles before they launch. That may not be a great idea.]

The non-nuclear countries obviously knew that the treaty would not immediately cause nuclear states to give up their arsenals. So why did they put so much effort into it?

The Non-Proliferation Treaty creates nuclear haves and have-nots.

To understand that, let’s look at a little history. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) set up a “grand bargain” in which non-nuclear nations agreed not to acquire nuclear arms, while the five countries that possessed nuclear weapons at the time — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — agreed to pursue disarmament. Nearly 50 years later, there is still no real disarmament; in fact, most nuclear-armed countries are modernizing their arsenals. That leaves the non-nuclear nations frustrated that the nuclear powers didn’t hold up their end of the bargain.

That frustration led to a new campaign to delegitimize nuclear weapons. Launched in 2010 at a review conference of the NPT, the campaign highlighted the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. The campaign was led eventually by Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand and South Africa, with strong support from civil society groups. It builds on the humanitarian concerns of the grass-roots antinuclear movements of the 1950s, but makes a more explicit effort to link antinuclear activism to the framework of international humanitarian law.

Campaigners warned how using even a small number of nuclear weapons could kill millions of people in non-nuclear countries through radioactive fallout, drops in temperature and large-scale crop failures leading to famine. In highlighting the devastating medical, environmental and economic effects of nuclear war, the campaign challenges the identities of the nuclear-armed countries as “civilized.”

The campaign successfully mobilized the support of a majority of countries for a legal ban on nuclear weapons. In December 2016, the General Assembly voted by 113 in favor to hold treaty negotiations, despite objections from the Britain, France, Russia, the United States and 34 other countries. All NATO allies except for the Netherlands opposed negotiations. China, India, Japan, Pakistan and South Korea abstained.

[In Hiroshima, Obama and Abe pledged to stop nuclear proliferation. Their actions don’t match their words.]

The United States lobbied its allies against it. U.S. officials warned of dire consequences if it was adopted, arguing that it would undermine existing nonproliferation and arms-control efforts. However, here’s why the United States is really opposed: The new treaty is explicitly trying to delegitimize the nuclear deterrence policies on which the United States and other nuclear-armed countries rely.

But wait, how will a ban work if the nuclear nations won’t participate?

The treaty’s main goal is to unambiguously prohibit nuclear weapons, placing them in the same class as chemical and biological weapons — thereby strengthening the norms against nuclear weapons’ use and possession.

Advocates believe the ban fills the legal gap left by the NPT, which has allowed the five declared nuclear powers to hang on to their nuclear weapons indefinitely. Taking that first step — declaring nuclear weapons illegal — can be done without the nuclear states. Indeed, the strategy was to leave them out so that they could not stall action — as they did, for instance, by not ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has not come into force.

As one advocate put it, “You cannot wait for the smokers to institute a smoking ban.”

The hope of nuclear disarmament has been around for a long time. How is this different?

This new treaty exemplifies three trends.

1) The democratizing of disarmament politics. The nuclear powers are losing control of the nuclear disarmament agenda. The ban campaign took its playbook from past successful efforts to ban land mines and cluster bombs. In those earlier efforts, key countries, through simple majority votes, took the debate outside traditional consensus-based U.N. negotiating forums over the objections of recalcitrant nations. Now, as then, advocates worked to mobilize widespread support against a class of weapons.

2) The key role of civil society groups. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) united about 450 nongovernmental organizations around the world to work on this effort. As in the cluster bomb and land mines campaigns, these groups have reframed disarmament as a humanitarian, not simply a security, issue. NGO campaigners disseminated these arguments through the United Nations, proposed treaty language, critiqued drafts and lobbied member countries to adopt their preferred positions, often successfully. The treaty will encourage more citizen activism.

3) The adoption of new norms. The treaty promotes changes of attitude, ideas, principles and discourse — essential precursors to reducing numbers of nuclear weapons. This approach to disarmament starts by changing the meaning of nuclear weapons, forcing leaders and societies to think about and value them differently.

[Why are some countries are more likely to get nuclear weapons than others? Here are 5 lessons from Iraq and Libya]

U.S. officials will reiterate that they are not bound by any treaty they did not join; therefore, by retaining nuclear weapons, they are not outside the law. Even so, a legal ban introduces new political challenges for the United States. The treaty’s prohibition on threats of nuclear weapons use directly challenges deterrence policies. It is likely to complicate policy options for U.S. allies under the U.S. nuclear “umbrella,” who are accountable to their parliaments and civil societies.

The new ban treaty may not result in the physical destruction of nuclear weapons anytime soon. But it is likely to have political effects internationally and domestically over the coming years, even in nuclear-armed states that did not, and will not, sign.

Nina Tannenwald is director of the International Relations Program at Brown University and the author of “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons.”

originalartikel: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/07/17/the-u-n-just-passed-a-treaty-outlawing-nuclear-weapons-that-actually-matters/?utm_term=.b03660a62bda

Nations take a step away from the threat of nuclear annihilation

veröffentlicht um 10.07.2017, 00:42 von Claudia Bürgler   [ aktualisiert: 10.07.2017, 00:48 ]

By Ira Helfand and Matt Bivens. Updated 2349 GMT (0749 HKT) July 7, 2017
Source: CNN
Haley: Time to escalate response to N Korea 01:05
Story highlights
A majority of the world's nations have just joined together to call forthe elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Authors: If the US is serious about keeping the world safe from a nuclear attack, then it should have voted yes to the ban “Ira Helfand, MD, is co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1985.Matt Bivens, MD, is chair of Greater Boston Physicians for Social
Responsibility. The opinions expressed in this commentary are theirs.”

(CNN)A majority of the world's nations have just joined together to call for the elimination of all nuclear
weapons. We should listen. The United States government opposed the historic UN vote for a new treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, but that was a knee-jerk response, grounded in last century's reflexes. Today, the path forward to total abolition of these weapons is open — even as, ironically, the danger of nuclear war is greater than it has been since the worst days of the Cold War. The United States and Russia hold more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, with about 7,000 each. The other nuclear-armed states have smaller arsenals by comparison. None of the nuclear-armed states were among the 120 nations who voted to declare these weapons illegal. But if the United States is serious about seeking the security of a world free of nuclear weapons, then it should have been the first to vote "yes" on the ban.

For decades the US has instead based its security policy on the theory of nuclear deterrence — an untested belief that nuclear weapons are so terrible that they keep one nuclear-armed country from attacking any other, for fear of mutual destruction. Perhaps. Then again, the same was said of machine guns in the 1800s — weapons of such awesome destructive power, they were predicted to end war. "They are peace-producing and peace-retaining terrors,"

The New York Times wrote in 1897 of the new Maxim machine guns, adding that "their devastating effects
have made nations and rulers give greater thought to the outcome of war before entering."Is there any reason to believe such tragically flawed logic from the 19th century will work out better in the 21st? More likely, nuclear weapons, those "peaceproducing and peace-retaining terrors," are simply
another horror that given time will grow mundane and familiar — until eventually they are used, this time
perhaps in a war that destroys humankind.

Trump, Putin and Erdogan: the three men upending global diplomacy
That is not hyperbole. New data suggest that a war involving just 100 nuclear weapons, or less than 1% of
the world's arsenals — say, for example, a regional war between India and Pakistan — would cause abrupt
severe climate disruption, worldwide food shortages, hundreds of millions of starvation deaths, and probably a
total collapse of civilization. And yet we continue to base our security on these
"peace-retaining terrors." A core assumption of this deterrence theory is that the nuclear-armed states will be led by calm, collected, and well-informed people, who will infallibly respond to crises in a rational fashion.
Perhaps. Then again, as it does after every presidential election, the US has now handed control of some 6,800 warheads to a single individual. How does the currentPresident fit with the idealized model of a world run by grownups? After all, according to a signed letter from 50 leading Republican national security experts, "He is
unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood ...lacks self-control and acts impetuously ... has alarmed
our closest allies with his erratic behavior" and overallexhibits "dangerous qualities in an individual ... with
command of the US nuclear arsenal."

US responds to North Korean missile launch 02:18
It is not enough, however, to get this particularly unqualified finger off the button. We need to get rid of
the button itself. Just consider whether anyone could be calm, collected, and reasonable after, say, a nuclear explosion destroys Moscow. It might not be clear for days whether such a disaster was caused by a terrorist, a foreign power, or a domestic accident. As this was being investigated, would the world likely be dealing with a calm, matter-of-fact Russian nation? How quickly might things spin out of control?
In the wake of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, the US government responded in part
by invading and occupying the completely unrelated nation of Iraq, causing hundreds of thousands of unjustified deaths and creating the vacuum now filled by ISIS and other extremist groups. Is there any reason to believe that we would do better in the future if New York was vaporized?

North Korean missile classified as 'brand new' 02:10
Yet there's no need for hypotheticals. We know of at least six incidents during and after the Cold War when
either Moscow or Washington was fully prepared to fire their nuclear weapons based on an error — a mistaken
belief that the other side had launched or was about to launch an attack. Six occasions when the leaders of the
nuclear super powers rejected the central assumption of deterrence — that nuclear weapons are actually safe,
because they can never be used — and set in motion plans to use them. On each of these occasions the world came within minutes of nuclear destruction. It was saved mainly by chance and good luck. Our continued view of nuclear weapons as "peace-producing and peace-retaining terrors" is essentially a hope that this good luck will continue. This seems terribly naive in a world of rising tensions with Russia, and growing concern that terrorists could hack into nuclear command and control systems.The UN's nuclear ban treaty points the way to a different future, one where we eliminate all of the 15,000 nuclear weapons that threaten our survival.
The treaty is in some ways a cry of frustration from the rest of the world. The United States, Russia, and other
nuclear-armed nations promised more than 37 years ago to work toward total disarmament. That was the bargain of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: We pledged to get rid of our nuclear weapons, in return for others pledging not to seek them.

The full meaning of Donald Trump's finger on the nuclear button But we have not kept our promise. In fact, as approved under President Barack Obama, the US government plans to build more nuclear weapons. Current projections show that the US will spend more than $1 trillion over the next 30 years on upgrading and expanding an arsenal that is already so powerful that using only a fraction of it could destroy all life on Earth.
In recent years, international impatience with stonewalling has finally boiled over. First came a series
of international conferences that cataloged the mindnumbing medical and humanitarian consequences that
will follow any use of nuclear weapons. Organized by a group of non-nuclear states, and supported by the
United Nations, the International Red Cross, and hundreds of medical professionals, civil society groups,
and religious leaders, including Pope Francis, these discussions rejuvenated arms control efforts.
Then in the fall of 2016, the UN General Assembly upped the ante: Since the nuclear-armed states were
cheating on past promises and keeping nuclear weapons, the world would now declare the weapons
illegal. The United States opposed this under President Obama and that opposition has continued, but to no
avail: The treaty is now entering into international law. Yes, the United States can try to ignore this. But as with
treaties banning land mines and cluster munitions, declaring nuclear weapons illegal creates a new
international norm. It is also a pointed reminder that the US is long overdue to honor a legally-binding promise
made 37 years ago to get rid of all of its nuclear weapons.
The new treaty is a call to action, and we should all answer it.
In the short term, US citizens can ask our government to stand down nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert. This can be as simple as a policy statement that, even if attacked, the US will defer any counterattack for some
period of time, say 24 hours. (In an age of nucleararmed submarines, such a de-alerting of our forces is
consistent even with the flawed deterrence theories.) Citizens can also support efforts in Congress to mandate
that this or any future President must get prior approval from Congress before launching a first strike with
nuclear weapons — the same permission any President now must obtain before starting a war.
The next step will be to negotiate a convention among the nine nuclear-armed states to abolish these weapons, which as of today are illegal, and have always been immoral. It will not be easy. Such an abolition agreement will have to include a firm timetable for dismantling weapons, involve rigorous verification and enforcement provisions, and satisfy the legitimate security needs of concerned states from Israel to Pakistan.
There is no guarantee we will succeed in this effort. But there is no real alternative to trying, other than wishful
thinking that our good luck can last forever. Until we eliminate nuclear weapons, we are living on borrowed


UN Vertrag über « Verbot von Atomwaffen » angenommen

veröffentlicht um 07.07.2017, 13:01 von Claudia Bürgler

(Pressemitteilung der PSR / IPPNW Schweiz)

Heute, Freitag 7. Juli, kurz vor 11.00h Ortszeit, wurde an der UNO in New York die sog. « Nuclear Prohibition Treaty » von 122 Nationen formell angenommen, wobei trotz gewisser Bedenken auch die Schweiz zugestimmt hat. Damit werden Atomwaffen 72 Jahre nach ihrer Erfindung verboten. Der Vertrag steht für die Unter- zeichnung im September zur Verfügung.

Bis jetzt waren Nuklearwaffen die einzigen Massenvernichtungswaffen, die gemäss Völkerrecht noch nicht verboten waren. Dies obwohl ihre nicht diskriminierende Wirkung und die massiven humanitären Konsequenzen eines absichtlichen oder unbeabsichtigten Einsatzes allgemein bekannt waren. Biologische Waffen wurden 1972 und chemische Waffen 1992 verboten. 

Auch wenn vorderhand die offiziellen Atommächte USA, Russland, China, England und Frankreich weiterhin an ihren Atomwaffen festhalten und auch Israel, Pakistan, Indien und Nordkorea sie momentan nicht aufgeben werden, wird der Vertrag zu einer weiteren Stigmatisierung dieser Massenvernichtungswaffen führen. Ebenfalls dürften die Interessen der beteiligten Rüstungsindustrie und die Milliardenbeträge welche bisher zum Unterhalt und zur Modernisierung der Atomwaffen notwendig waren jetzt hinterfragt werden.    

Die « Nuclear Prohibition Treaty » wurde aufgrund des grossen Interesses der befürwortenden Nationen möglich. Sie sehen ihre Zukunft durch das Vorhandensein von Atomwaffen in einer ohnehin unsicheren Welt gefährdet und wissen, dass sie ihre Bevölkerungen bei einem Atomschlag nicht schützen könnten. Ebenfalls zeigen neue meteorologische Studien, dass selbst ein limitierter Nuklearkrieg bpsw. in Südasien durch enorme Rauchentwicklung und Staubaufwirbelung zu einer atmo- sphärischen Verdunkelung und durch Filterwirkung zu einer Lichtabsorption führen würde. Dies wiederum hätte einen signifikanten Temperaturabfall zur Folge mit einer Verkürzung der Wachstumsphase in Agrarländern der gesamten nördlichen Hemi- sphäre, was ein massive Hungersnot für bis zur einer Milliarde Menschen auslösen könnte.

Nachdem sich aber auch das Internationale Komitee vom Roten Kreuz als Institution für diese « Nuclear Ban Treaty » eingesetzt hat steht die Schweiz als Mutterland des Rotkreuzgedankens weiterhin dringend in der Pflicht,  sich mit ihren diplomatischen Möglichkeiten für die Aechtung der Atomwaffen einzusetzen.

Die Internationalen Aerzte zur Verhütung eines Atomkriegs (IPPNW,  International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Friedens Nobelpreis 1985) haben sich seit ihrer Gründung 1980 für die Abschaffung der Atomwaffen engagiert und freuen sich über diesen Zwischenerfolg. Sie sehen sich mit diesem Vertrag ihrem Ziel näher, auch wenn es noch einige Jahre dauern wird, bis dieses erreicht sein wird.

PSR Responds to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley's Boycott of the UN Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Negotiations

veröffentlicht um 28.03.2017, 00:30 von Claudia Bürgler

"No nation has the 'right hands' when it comes to nuclear weapons."

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, March 27, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley announced the U.S. government refused to join over 100 countries gathering at the United Nations in New York to begin negotiations of the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty. Despite Ambassador Haley's contention that "we all believe in the Non-Proliferation Treaty," the U.S. government flouts its disarmament obligations under Article VI of the Treaty. The U.S. government plans to invest over $1 trillion to upgrade and significantly expand the capability of its nuclear arsenal.

Ambassador Haley's boycott is highly unlikely to impede the negotiations. Later this year, the negotiations are expected to achieve a legally binding instrument to prohibit the possession of nuclear weapons. Further, the Treaty will inaugurate a universal norm stigmatizing nuclear weapons, making Ambassador Haley's commentary on "bad actors" obsolete.

PSR (Physicians for Social Responsibility) has actively supported the Humanitarian Impact Initiative, which has prompted an international debate on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. In December 2013, PSR and its international affiliate, IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), released a report that documents the medical catastrophe of modern nuclear warfare. An understanding of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons framed a series of three intergovernmental forums that have culminated in the 2017 Ban Treaty negotiations.

The Ban Treaty renews pressure on the U.S. to comply with its existing disarmament obligations under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty at a moment when the U.S. government plans to spend $1 trillion to prolong the existence of its nuclear arsenal into the 2080s. A Treaty that deems the continued possession of nuclear weapons illegal and morally reprehensible will undermine the justifications for perpetuating the U.S. nuclear weapons program.

Jeff Carter, PSR Executive Director, commented:

"Nuclear weapons in anyone's hands pose a grave risk to human health. Rather than boycott these important negotiations, the United States should lend its considerable influence to support this effort. The Ban Treaty will properly stigmatize nuclear weapons on their way to complete elimination."

Ira Helfand, MD, PSR Security Committee co-chair & IPPNW co-president, commented:

"Those who have supported the continued reliance on nuclear weapons must now consider that no nation has the 'right hands' when it comes to nuclear weapons. We have to accept once and for all that these weapons can never be used and must be eliminated from the world's arsenals. The negotiations that begin this month at the United Nations for a new treaty to ban nuclear weapons are a key next step toward this goal and deserve our full support."

Robert Dodge, MD, PSR Board Member, commented:

"This treaty will ban nuclear weapons just as every other weapon of mass destruction, from chemical to biological weapons and landmines have been banned. Finally, the deadliest of these immoral weapons will be outlawed. From that point forth only pariah nations acting outside the realm of international law will continue to maintain nuclear arsenals."

Martin Fleck, PSR Security Program Director, commented:

"The nuclear-armed countries got off on the wrong path long ago. Despite every excuse from the U.S. Ambassador, we've got to get back on the right path. The Ban Treaty will point us in the right direction."

Physicians for Social Responsibility, a member organization of over 30,000 seeks to address the gravest threats to human health and survival. The group's motto is "Prevention is the only cure." PSR's international federation, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, received the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.



Elana Simon, Communications Manager
(202) 587-5323

Martin Fleck, Security Program Director
(202) 587-5242


1-10 of 51