SYMPOSIUM ON STRENGNTHENING THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY
17 November, 2008
F?LLESSALEN, CHRISTIANSBORG PALACE, 1240 COPENHAGEN K

13.10-13.15: Welcome

13.15-13.45: Lecture by Dr. Hans Blix, Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission

13.45-14.15: Lecture by MF Holger K. Nielsen, Danish Parliament

14.15-14.45: Lecture by Hans M. Kristensen, Director, Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists, Washington D.C.

14.45-15.00: Discussion from the floor

15.00-15.20: Coffee Break

15.20-15.40: Lecture by Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iranian Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency

15.40-16.10: Lecture by Pol D'Hyvetter, Belgium, Coordinator, Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign

16.10-16.20: Lecture by Alyn Ware, Global Coordinator, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament

16.20-16.30: Lecture by Carlos Vargos, Costa Rica, Legal Consultant for Submission of the Nuclear Weapons Convention to the United Nations General Assembly

16.30-16.45: Discussion from the floor

Organizers: Danish National Group, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs; Danske L?ger Mod Kernev?ben (Danish Branch, International Physicians Against Nuclear War); Mandela Centre; SGI Denmark; Danish Peace Academy; International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility

SYMPOSIUM ON STRENGTHENING THE
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY

Christiansborg Palace, Copenhagen
November 17, 2008

The background of the symposium is as follows: Since light water reac-
tors use low enriched uranium (LEU) as fuel, it follows that states using such
reactors must either be able to purchase LEU on the world market or else
possess enrichment facilities. But if they possess enrichment facilities, for
example high-speed centrifuges, these can be used to produce weapon-usable
highly-enriched uranium, and it becomes impossible to distinguish between
civil and military nuclear programs. IAEA Director General Mohamed El-
Baradei has called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities the
\Achilles heel" of the nonproliferation regime. He has proposed that the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, including the production of LEU fuel rods, and
the reprocessing of spent rods, be internationalized, i.e., all production and
reprocessing of fuel rods should take place under the strict control of the
IAEA.1 We hope that the symposium will discuss the steps needed to bring
about this internationalization.

Other threats to the nonproliferation regime come from noncompliance
with Article VI, from \nuclear sharing", and from the US nuclear deal with
India. The symposium will also discuss NATO nuclear policy, the Missile
Shield and its role in increasing international tensions, as well as the situa-
tions in Iran, Pakistan and North Korea.

The vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world

In a recent speech (19 March, 2008), Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain
said:

I can tell the House that Britain will be on the forefront of diplomatic
action on nuclear weapons control and reduction, o ering a new bargain to
non-nuclear powers. On the one hand, we will help them, and we have pro-
posed the creation of a new international system to help non-nuclear states
acquire the new sources of energy that they need ... through a global en-
richment bond... and we are today inviting interested countries to an inter-
national conference on these themes later this year. But in return, we will
seek tougher controls aimed at reducing weapons and preventing prolifera-
tion. First, ending the stalemates on the Fissile Materials Cut-O Treaty
and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Second, achieving after
2010 a more robust implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
with aim of accelerating disarmament among possessor states, preventing
proliferation and ultimately freeing the world from nuclear weapons.

Last year, former US Defense Secretary William Perry, Senator Sam
Nunn, and two former Secretaries of State, George Schultz and Henry Kiss-
inger, expressed the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world in two widely-read
articles in the Wall Street Journal. The fact that these former \Cold War-
riors" now strongly advocate the complete abolition of nuclear weapons is an
expression of the urgency of the task. Part of this urgency comes from the
threat of nuclear terrorism, and part from the danger of accidental nuclear
war. There is also a danger that nuclear weapons may be intentionally used,
for example in a confict between India and Pakistan or between the US and
Iran. Proliferation will increase these dangers, and as long as any country
has nuclear weapons, other countries will want them.

The overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens throughout the world
strongly favor complete abolition of nuclear weapons. This is reflected by
many votes taken in the United Nations General Assembly. For example,
in October 2006, the First Committee voted 169 to 3 in favor of Japan's
resolution to abolish nuclear weapons. 113 countries have signed treaties
establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones, and the entire Southern Hemisphere
is out of bounds for these weapons. A public opinion pole conducted by the
Simons Foundation showed that in six industrialized countries, the following
percentages of the people support abolition of nuclear weapons: Britain,
84.5%; France, 86.6%; Italy, 94.6%; Germany, 95.4%; USA, 73.5%; Israel,
78.0%. If countries in the developing world had been included in the poll,
the percentage of people favoring abolition would undoubtedly have been
even higher. Thus the continuation of a system of international security
based on a balance of nuclear terror violates democratic principles.

According to a 1996 decision of the International Court of Justice, \The
threat and use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules
of international law..". The Court added unanimously that \there exists an
obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations
leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict international
control". We hope that this symposium will contribute to making the vision
of a nuclear-weapon-free-world a reality.