名演説、翻訳の見出しを見て、感じたことである。終わりの始まりとは、しかし、条約への参加を呼び掛けているものであったから、どういうことだろうか。核兵器禁止条約の採択に2017年7月7日に賛成し、かつて人類の最悪な側面を目撃しましたが、その日は最良の側面を目撃した、ということであった。被爆者の72年間、核兵器の禁止を待ち続けてきたことが、この日の核兵器の終わりの始まりにしよう、というスピーチである。
http://blog.livedoor.jp/sagittariun/archives/5624775.html
＞
2017年ノーベル平和賞記念講演スピーチ全文(English)
Award Ceremony Speech
Presentation Speech by Berit Reiss-Andersen, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, 10 December 2017.
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Representatives of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017. On behalf of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, I take great pleasure in congratulating ICAN on this award.
ICAN is receiving the award for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons. ICAN's efforts have given new momentum to the process of abolishing nuclear weapons.
This year's Peace Prize follows in a tradition of awards that have honoured efforts against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and for nuclear disarmament. Twelve Peace Prizes have been awarded, in whole or in part, for this type of peace work. The first went to Philip Noel-Baker in 1959, and the most recent was awarded to Barack Obama in 2009. And now, this year, to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
On two days in August 1945, the world experienced the terrible destructive force of nuclear weapons for the first time. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki instantly killed at least 140,000 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians. Hiroshima was utterly destroyed and large sections of Nagasaki were laid in ruins. But death was not finished with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The death toll continued to rise significantly in the years that followed, and survivors are still suffering from the effects of radiation today.
The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has taught us that nuclear weapons are so dangerous, and inflict so much agony and death on civilian populations, that they must never, ever, be used again.
Today's nuclear weapons are tremendously more destructive than the bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945. A nuclear war could kill millions of people, dramatically alter the climate and the environment for much of the planet, and destabilise societies in a way never before seen by humanity. The notion of a limited nuclear war is an illusion.
Nuclear weapons do not distinguish between military and civilian targets. Used in war, they would impact disproportionately on the civilian population, inflicting vast, unnecessary suffering. It is virtually impossible for civilians to protect themselves against the catastrophic effects of a nuclear attack. The use of nuclear weapons – or even the threat of using them – is therefore unacceptable on any grounds, whether humanitarian, moral or legal.
Despite all this, it remains the case that the global balance of military power is maintained by nuclear weapons. The logic of this balance of terror rests on the proposition that nuclear weapons are such a deterrent that no one would dare attack a nuclear-armed state. The deterrent effect is said to be so strong that it alone has prevented war between the nuclear powers for the last 70 years. The empirical basis for this assumption is highly debatable. It cannot be claimed with any certainty that deterrence has worked as intended. It is also worth keeping in mind that nuclear deterrence requires a credible threat to actually use nuclear weapons. The weapons exist so that they can, if necessary, be deployed.
A number of international agreements and treaties have been entered into which limit the possession and development of nuclear weapons. The most important of these is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT. It takes considerable military and political insight to fully understand all the treaties, agreements and international legal instruments that regulate disarmament and arms control. The views that dominate the political debate are those of the great powers and powerful alliances.
ICAN arose as a protest against the established order. Nuclear weapon issues are not solely a question to be addressed by governments, nor a matter for experts or high-level politicians. Nuclear weapons concern everyone, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. ICAN has succeeded in generating fresh engagement among ordinary people in the campaign against nuclear weapons. The organisation's acronym is perhaps not a coincidence: I CAN.
ICAN's main message is that the world can never be safe as long as we have nuclear weapons. This message resonates with millions of people who perceive that the threat of nuclear war is greater than it has been for a long time, not least due to the situation in North Korea.
Another major concern of ICAN is that the current international legal order is inadequate to deal with the nuclear weapons problem.
The entry into force of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 was a historic breakthrough. It gave formal status to the nuclear powers of the day – the United States, the Soviet Union, the UK, France and China – as states with the legal right to possess nuclear weapons. All other countries that acceded to the treaty pledged, in so doing, not to acquire such weapons. In return, the legally recognized nuclear-weapon states undertook to begin negotiations in good faith to seek nuclear disarmament. This dual pledge is the very core of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and both sides of it must be honoured to maintain the treaty's legitimacy.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is no exaggeration to say that the nuclear-weapon states have only to a limited degree honoured the disarmament commitment they made in the NPT. Let me remind you that in 2000 the NPT's Review Conference stated that the treaty calls for "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament". From an international law perspective, the five legally recognized nuclear-weapon states and their allies have thus assumed a responsibility to help achieve disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons. If the disarmament process had been carried out as intended, ICAN's struggle for a treaty-based ban on nuclear weapons would have been unneeded. It is the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament that has made it necessary to supplement the Non-Proliferation Treaty with other international legal initiatives and commitments.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty applies only to the countries that have acceded to it. India, Pakistan and Israel, which all have nuclear weapons, are not NPT members. Moreover, North Korea, which has carried out six nuclear test explosions, has withdrawn from the treaty. Global nuclear disarmament cannot take place without these countries, too, participating. Yet they reserve for themselves the same right to nuclear weapons as the five states that had acquired such weapons prior to 1970. The five legally recognized nuclear-weapon states, for their part, cite the nuclear arsenals of these other countries as one of several arguments for not yet being able to comply with the NPT's nuclear disarmament requirements.
It is in part to break this vicious cycle that ICAN has advocated a universal, treaty-based ban on nuclear weapons.
ICAN does not accept that the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament is a realpolitik necessity. ICAN's premise is humanitarian, maintaining that any use of nuclear weapons will cause unacceptable human suffering. Binding international prohibitions have already been established for chemical weapons, biological weapons, land mines and cluster weapons, precisely because of the unacceptable harm and suffering that these weapons inflict on civilian populations. It defies common sense that nuclear weapons, which are far more dangerous, are not subject to a comparable ban under international law.
Pointing out this legal gap was a crucial first step on the road to a prohibition treaty. Another important step was the Humanitarian Pledge initiated by the Austrian Government in December 2014. The Pledge is a voluntary national commitment to seek to stigmatise, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons. ICAN has worked resolutely to muster broad international support for the Humanitarian Pledge. To date, 127 states have signed on to this commitment.
ICAN has also been a driving force in efforts to secure a binding international ban of nuclear weapons. On 7 July 2017, a final draft treaty was endorsed by 129 UN member states. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was opened for signature this autumn, and has been signed so far by 56 states. When 50 or more states have also ratified the treaty, it will become binding under international law for the signatory states.
ICAN is a young organisation, founded in 2007 on the initiative of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. ICAN is a loose coalition of 468 NGOs from more than 100 countries. It is impressive that ICAN is able to unite so many different groups in support of a common goal and give a voice to millions of people who are convinced that nuclear weapons do not provide security, but insecurity.
In awarding this year's Peace Prize to ICAN, the Norwegian Nobel Committee seeks to honour this remarkable endeavour to serve the interests of mankind.
The Nobel Committee believes that an international ban on nuclear weapons will be an important, possibly decisive, step on the road to a world without nuclear weapons. Such a goal is fully consistent with the essence of Alfred Nobel's will.
Ladies and gentlemen, ICAN's support for a global ban on nuclear weapons is not uncontroversial. We must acknowledge that the treaty has powerful opponents, but the idea of prohibiting and abolishing nuclear weapons is neither naïve nor new. As early as 1946, in the UN General Assembly's very first resolution, the United Nations called for nuclear disarmament and an international nuclear weapons control regime.
At the Reykjavik Summit in 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan tried to halt the spiralling nuclear arms race between the two superpowers, and came close to concluding an agreement to abolish all long-range nuclear missiles. A year and a half earlier, President Reagan had addressed the people of the United States and the Soviet Union directly, saying:
"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they never will be used. But then, would it not be better to do away with them entirely?"
Today it is more important than ever to support this vision. While the global community may trust that no responsible head of state would ever order another nuclear attack, we have no guarantees that it will not happen. Despite international legal commitments, irresponsible leaders can come to power in any nuclear-armed state and become embroiled in serious military conflicts that veer out of control.
Ultimately, nuclear weapons are controlled by human beings. In spite of advanced security mechanisms and control systems, technical and human errors can occur, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Can we be sure that the control systems of the nuclear powers will not someday be sabotaged by hackers acting on behalf of hostile states, terrorists or extremists?
In short, nuclear weapons are so dangerous that the only responsible course of action is to work for their removal and destruction.
Many people think that the vision of a nuclear weapon-free world, a Global Zero, is utopic, or even irresponsible.
Similar arguments were once used to oppose the treaties banning biological and chemical weapons, cluster weapons and land mines. Nonetheless, the prohibitions became reality and most of these weapons are far less prevalent today as a result. Using them is taboo.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is aware that nuclear weapons disarmament presents far greater challenges than disarmament of the types of weapons I just mentioned. But there is no getting around the fact that the nuclear weapon states have committed, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to work towards disarmament. This is the ultimate objective of the treaty. Through its efforts, ICAN has reminded the nuclear weapon states that their commitment entails a genuine obligation, and the time to honour it is now!
In his Nobel lecture in 1959, Philip Noel-Baker took issue with the widely held opinion that complete nuclear disarmament is impossible to achieve in the real world. He quoted another Peace Prize laureate, Fridtjof Nansen:
"The difficult is what takes a little while; the impossible is what takes a little longer."
The people of ICAN are impatient and visionary, but they are not naïve. ICAN recognizes that the nuclear-armed states cannot eliminate their nuclear weapons overnight. This must be achieved through a mutual, gradual and verifiable disarmament process. But it is the hope of ICAN and the Norwegian Nobel Committee that an international legal ban, and broad popular engagement, will put pressure on all nuclear-armed states and expedite the process.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are two persons on the podium today who, each in their way, are outstanding representatives of the ICAN movement.
Madam Setsuko Thurlow, you were 13 years old when you experienced the bombing of Hiroshima. You have devoted your life to bearing witness to the events of 6 August 1945. You see it as your mission to describe the suffering, fear and death inflicted on your city. No one was spared. Little children, their parents, brothers and sisters, schoolmates and grandparents were killed. You say that war cannot be waged in this way, and that it must never happen again. You do not allow us to forget.
Beatrice Fihn, you are the Executive Director of ICAN and have the challenging task of uniting different organisations and interest groups in pursuit of a common goal. You are a splendid representative of the multitude of idealists who forgo an ordinary career and instead devote all of their time and skills to the work of achieving a peaceful world.
It is an honour to have you here as our guests, and we wish to express our deep and heartfelt gratitude for the work that you do. Our tribute also goes to all the individuals and organisations that you represent.
The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has a solid grounding in Alfred Nobel's will. The will specifies three different criteria for awarding the Peace Prize: the promotion of fraternity between nations, the advancement of disarmament and arms control and the holding and promotion of peace congresses. ICAN works vigorously to achieve nuclear disarmament. ICAN and a majority of UN member states have contributed to fraternity between nations by supporting the Humanitarian Pledge. And through its inspiring and innovative support for the UN negotiations on a Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, ICAN has played an important role in bringing about what in our day and age is equivalent to an international peace congress.
In closing, I would like to quote His Holiness Pope Francis, who recently declared: "Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, create nothing but a false sense of security. They cannot constitute the basis for peaceful coexistence between members of the human family, which must rather be inspired by an ethics of solidarity."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee shares this view. Moreover, it is our firm conviction that ICAN, more than anyone else, has in the past year given the efforts to achieve a world without nuclear weapons a new direction and new vigour.
Thank you.
(End)
Nobelprize.org
The Nobel Peace Prize 2017
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/world/list/201712/CK2017121102000059.html
東京新聞 TOKYO Web
【国際】
ノーベル平和賞 サーロー節子さん演説全文
2017年12月11日 夕刊
＞
ノーベル平和賞の授賞式で演説するサーロー節子さん＝１０日、オスロで（共同）
写真
十日オスロで行われた核兵器廃絶国際キャンペーン（ＩＣＡＮ（アイキャン））へのノーベル平和賞授賞式で被爆者サーロー節子さんが行った演説は次の通り。
◇
両陛下。ノルウェー・ノーベル賞委員会の高名なメンバーの皆さま。ここにいる、そして世界中にいる運動家の仲間たち。淑女、紳士の皆さま。
ＩＣＡＮの運動を形づくる傑出した全ての人々に成り代わってベアトリス（・フィン事務局長）と共にこの賞を受け取ることは大変な栄誉です。私たちは核兵器の時代を終わらせることができる、終わらせるのだという、かくも大きな希望を皆さま一人一人が私に与えてくれます。
座視しない
被爆者は、奇跡のような偶然によって広島と長崎の原爆を生き延びました。私は被爆者の一人としてお話しします。七十年以上にわたって私たちは核兵器の廃絶に取り組んできました。
私たちは、この恐ろしい兵器の開発と実験から危害を被った世界中の人々と連帯してきました。（核実験が行われた）ムルロア、エケル、セミパラチンスク、マラリンガ、ビキニといった長く忘れられた地の人々。土地と海を放射線にさらされ、人体実験に使われ、文化を永遠に破壊された人々と連帯してきました。
私たちは犠牲者であることに甘んじることはありませんでした。灼熱（しゃくねつ）の終末を即座に迎えることや、世界がゆっくりと汚染されていくことに対し、手をこまねいていることは拒否しました。いわゆる大国が、無謀にも私たちを核のたそがれから核の闇夜の間際へと送り込むことを、恐怖の中で座視することは拒否しました。私たちは立ち上がりました。生き延びた体験を分かち合いました。人類と核兵器は共存できないのだと声にしました。
叫び声聞こえた
きょう、この会場で皆さまには、広島と長崎で死を遂げた全ての人々の存在を感じてほしいと思います。雲霞（うんか）のような二十数万の魂を身の回りに感じていただきたいのです。一人一人に名前があったのです。誰かから愛されていたのです。彼らの死は、無駄ではなかったと確認しましょう。
米国が最初の原爆を私が住んでいた都市、広島に投下した時、私はまだ十三歳でした。私は今もあの朝を鮮明に覚えています。八時十五分、窓からの青みを帯びた白い閃光（せんこう）に目がくらみました。体が宙に浮かぶ感覚を覚えています。
静かな闇の中で意識を取り戻すと、倒壊した建物の中で身動きできないことに気付きました。級友たちの弱々しい叫び声が聞こえてきました。「お母さん、助けて。神さま、助けて」
そして突然、私の左肩に手が触れるのを感じました。「諦めるな。頑張れ。助けてやる。あの隙間から光が差すのが見えるか。あそこまでできるだけ速くはっていくんだ」。誰かがこう言うのが聞こえました。はい出ると、倒壊した建物には火が付いていました。あの建物にいた級友のほとんどは生きたまま焼かれ、死にました。そこら中が途方もなく完全に破壊されているのを目にしました。
幽霊のような人影が行列をつくり、足を引きずりながら通り過ぎていきました。人々は異様なまでに傷を負っていました。血を流し、やけどを負い、黒く焦げて、腫れ上がっていました。体の一部を失っていました。肉と皮膚が骨からぶら下がっていました。飛び出た眼球を手に受け止めている人もいました。おなかが裂けて開き、腸が外に垂れ下がっている人もいました。人間の肉体が焼けた時の嫌な悪臭が立ち込めていました。
このようにして、私の愛する都市は一発の爆弾によって消滅したのです。住民のほとんどは非戦闘員でした。彼らは燃やされ、焼き尽くされ、炭になりました。その中には私の家族と三百五十一人の級友が含まれています。
愚行を許さない
その後の数週間、数カ月間、数年間にわたって、放射線の後遺症により予測もつかないような不可解な形で何千もの人々が亡くなりました。今日に至ってもなお、放射線は人々の命を奪っています。
広島を思い出すとき、最初に目に浮かぶのは四歳だった私のおい、英治の姿です。小さな体は溶けて、肉の塊に変わり、見分けがつかないほどでした。死によって苦しみから解放されるまで弱々しい声で水が欲しいと言い続けました。
今この瞬間も、世界中で罪のない子どもたちが核兵器の脅威にさらされています。おいは私にとって、こうした世界の子どもたちを代表する存在となりました。核兵器はいつどんなときも、私たちが愛する全ての人々、いとおしく思う全てを危険にさらしています。私たちはこの愚行をこれ以上許してはなりません。
苦しみと生き延びるためのいちずな闘いを通じて、そして廃虚から復興するための苦闘を通じて私たち被爆者は確信に至りました。破局をもたらすこうした兵器について、私たちは世界に警告しなければならないのです。繰り返し私たちは証言してきました。
しかし、広島と長崎（への原爆投下）を残虐行為、戦争犯罪と見なすことをなお拒絶する人たちもいたのです。「正義の戦争」を終わらせた「良い爆弾」だったとするプロパガンダを受け入れたわけです。こうした作り話が破滅的な核軍拡競争をもたらしました。今日に至るまで核軍拡競争は続いています。
今も九つの国が都市を灰にし、地球上の生命を破壊し、私たちの美しい世界を未来の世代が住めないようにすると脅しています。核兵器の開発は、国家が偉大さの高みに上ることを意味しません。むしろ、この上なく暗い邪悪の深みに転落することを意味するのです。こうした兵器は必要悪ではありません。絶対悪なのです。
終わりの始まり
今年七月七日、世界の大多数の国々が核兵器禁止条約の採択に賛成した時、私は喜びでいっぱいになりました。私はかつて人類の最悪な側面を目撃しましたが、その日は最良の側面を目撃したのです。私たち被爆者は七十二年の間（核兵器が）禁止されることを待ち続けてきました。これを核兵器の終わりの始まりにしようではありませんか。
責任ある指導者であれば、必ずやこの条約に署名するに違いありません。署名を拒否すれば歴史の厳しい審判を受けることになるでしょう。彼らのふるまいは大量虐殺につながるのだという現実を抽象的な理論が覆い隠すことはもはやありません。「抑止力」とは、軍縮を抑止するものなのだということはもはや明らかです。私たちはもはや恐怖のキノコ雲の下で暮らすことはありません。
核武装した国々の当局者と、いわゆる「核の傘」の下にいる共犯者たちに言います。私たちの証言を聞きなさい。私たちの警告を心に刻みなさい。そして、自らの行為の重みを知りなさい。あなたたちはそれぞれ、人類を危険にさらす暴力の体系を構成する不可欠な要素となっているのです。私たちは悪の陳腐さを警戒しましょう。
世界のあらゆる国の、全ての大統領と首相に懇願します。この条約に参加してください。核による滅亡の脅威を永久になくしてください。
光に向かって
私は十三歳の時、くすぶるがれきの中に閉じ込められても、頑張り続けました。光に向かって進み続けました。そして生き残りました。いま私たちにとって、核禁止条約が光です。この会場にいる皆さんに、世界中で聞いている皆さんに、広島の倒壊した建物の中で耳にした呼び掛けの言葉を繰り返します。「諦めるな。頑張れ。光が見えるか。それに向かってはっていくんだ」
今夜、燃え立つたいまつを持ってオスロの通りを行進し、核の恐怖という暗い夜から抜け出しましょう。どんな障害に直面しようとも、私たちは進み続け、頑張り、他の人たちとこの光を分
http://blog.livedoor.jp/sagittariun/archives/5624775.html
＞
2017年ノーベル平和賞記念講演スピーチ全文(English)
Award Ceremony Speech
Presentation Speech by Berit Reiss-Andersen, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, 10 December 2017.
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Representatives of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017. On behalf of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, I take great pleasure in congratulating ICAN on this award.
ICAN is receiving the award for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons. ICAN's efforts have given new momentum to the process of abolishing nuclear weapons.
This year's Peace Prize follows in a tradition of awards that have honoured efforts against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and for nuclear disarmament. Twelve Peace Prizes have been awarded, in whole or in part, for this type of peace work. The first went to Philip Noel-Baker in 1959, and the most recent was awarded to Barack Obama in 2009. And now, this year, to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
On two days in August 1945, the world experienced the terrible destructive force of nuclear weapons for the first time. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki instantly killed at least 140,000 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians. Hiroshima was utterly destroyed and large sections of Nagasaki were laid in ruins. But death was not finished with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The death toll continued to rise significantly in the years that followed, and survivors are still suffering from the effects of radiation today.
The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has taught us that nuclear weapons are so dangerous, and inflict so much agony and death on civilian populations, that they must never, ever, be used again.
Today's nuclear weapons are tremendously more destructive than the bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945. A nuclear war could kill millions of people, dramatically alter the climate and the environment for much of the planet, and destabilise societies in a way never before seen by humanity. The notion of a limited nuclear war is an illusion.
Nuclear weapons do not distinguish between military and civilian targets. Used in war, they would impact disproportionately on the civilian population, inflicting vast, unnecessary suffering. It is virtually impossible for civilians to protect themselves against the catastrophic effects of a nuclear attack. The use of nuclear weapons – or even the threat of using them – is therefore unacceptable on any grounds, whether humanitarian, moral or legal.
Despite all this, it remains the case that the global balance of military power is maintained by nuclear weapons. The logic of this balance of terror rests on the proposition that nuclear weapons are such a deterrent that no one would dare attack a nuclear-armed state. The deterrent effect is said to be so strong that it alone has prevented war between the nuclear powers for the last 70 years. The empirical basis for this assumption is highly debatable. It cannot be claimed with any certainty that deterrence has worked as intended. It is also worth keeping in mind that nuclear deterrence requires a credible threat to actually use nuclear weapons. The weapons exist so that they can, if necessary, be deployed.
A number of international agreements and treaties have been entered into which limit the possession and development of nuclear weapons. The most important of these is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT. It takes considerable military and political insight to fully understand all the treaties, agreements and international legal instruments that regulate disarmament and arms control. The views that dominate the political debate are those of the great powers and powerful alliances.
ICAN arose as a protest against the established order. Nuclear weapon issues are not solely a question to be addressed by governments, nor a matter for experts or high-level politicians. Nuclear weapons concern everyone, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. ICAN has succeeded in generating fresh engagement among ordinary people in the campaign against nuclear weapons. The organisation's acronym is perhaps not a coincidence: I CAN.
ICAN's main message is that the world can never be safe as long as we have nuclear weapons. This message resonates with millions of people who perceive that the threat of nuclear war is greater than it has been for a long time, not least due to the situation in North Korea.
Another major concern of ICAN is that the current international legal order is inadequate to deal with the nuclear weapons problem.
The entry into force of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 was a historic breakthrough. It gave formal status to the nuclear powers of the day – the United States, the Soviet Union, the UK, France and China – as states with the legal right to possess nuclear weapons. All other countries that acceded to the treaty pledged, in so doing, not to acquire such weapons. In return, the legally recognized nuclear-weapon states undertook to begin negotiations in good faith to seek nuclear disarmament. This dual pledge is the very core of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and both sides of it must be honoured to maintain the treaty's legitimacy.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is no exaggeration to say that the nuclear-weapon states have only to a limited degree honoured the disarmament commitment they made in the NPT. Let me remind you that in 2000 the NPT's Review Conference stated that the treaty calls for "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament". From an international law perspective, the five legally recognized nuclear-weapon states and their allies have thus assumed a responsibility to help achieve disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons. If the disarmament process had been carried out as intended, ICAN's struggle for a treaty-based ban on nuclear weapons would have been unneeded. It is the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament that has made it necessary to supplement the Non-Proliferation Treaty with other international legal initiatives and commitments.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty applies only to the countries that have acceded to it. India, Pakistan and Israel, which all have nuclear weapons, are not NPT members. Moreover, North Korea, which has carried out six nuclear test explosions, has withdrawn from the treaty. Global nuclear disarmament cannot take place without these countries, too, participating. Yet they reserve for themselves the same right to nuclear weapons as the five states that had acquired such weapons prior to 1970. The five legally recognized nuclear-weapon states, for their part, cite the nuclear arsenals of these other countries as one of several arguments for not yet being able to comply with the NPT's nuclear disarmament requirements.
It is in part to break this vicious cycle that ICAN has advocated a universal, treaty-based ban on nuclear weapons.
ICAN does not accept that the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament is a realpolitik necessity. ICAN's premise is humanitarian, maintaining that any use of nuclear weapons will cause unacceptable human suffering. Binding international prohibitions have already been established for chemical weapons, biological weapons, land mines and cluster weapons, precisely because of the unacceptable harm and suffering that these weapons inflict on civilian populations. It defies common sense that nuclear weapons, which are far more dangerous, are not subject to a comparable ban under international law.
Pointing out this legal gap was a crucial first step on the road to a prohibition treaty. Another important step was the Humanitarian Pledge initiated by the Austrian Government in December 2014. The Pledge is a voluntary national commitment to seek to stigmatise, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons. ICAN has worked resolutely to muster broad international support for the Humanitarian Pledge. To date, 127 states have signed on to this commitment.
ICAN has also been a driving force in efforts to secure a binding international ban of nuclear weapons. On 7 July 2017, a final draft treaty was endorsed by 129 UN member states. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was opened for signature this autumn, and has been signed so far by 56 states. When 50 or more states have also ratified the treaty, it will become binding under international law for the signatory states.
ICAN is a young organisation, founded in 2007 on the initiative of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. ICAN is a loose coalition of 468 NGOs from more than 100 countries. It is impressive that ICAN is able to unite so many different groups in support of a common goal and give a voice to millions of people who are convinced that nuclear weapons do not provide security, but insecurity.
In awarding this year's Peace Prize to ICAN, the Norwegian Nobel Committee seeks to honour this remarkable endeavour to serve the interests of mankind.
The Nobel Committee believes that an international ban on nuclear weapons will be an important, possibly decisive, step on the road to a world without nuclear weapons. Such a goal is fully consistent with the essence of Alfred Nobel's will.
Ladies and gentlemen, ICAN's support for a global ban on nuclear weapons is not uncontroversial. We must acknowledge that the treaty has powerful opponents, but the idea of prohibiting and abolishing nuclear weapons is neither naïve nor new. As early as 1946, in the UN General Assembly's very first resolution, the United Nations called for nuclear disarmament and an international nuclear weapons control regime.
At the Reykjavik Summit in 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan tried to halt the spiralling nuclear arms race between the two superpowers, and came close to concluding an agreement to abolish all long-range nuclear missiles. A year and a half earlier, President Reagan had addressed the people of the United States and the Soviet Union directly, saying:
"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they never will be used. But then, would it not be better to do away with them entirely?"
Today it is more important than ever to support this vision. While the global community may trust that no responsible head of state would ever order another nuclear attack, we have no guarantees that it will not happen. Despite international legal commitments, irresponsible leaders can come to power in any nuclear-armed state and become embroiled in serious military conflicts that veer out of control.
Ultimately, nuclear weapons are controlled by human beings. In spite of advanced security mechanisms and control systems, technical and human errors can occur, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Can we be sure that the control systems of the nuclear powers will not someday be sabotaged by hackers acting on behalf of hostile states, terrorists or extremists?
In short, nuclear weapons are so dangerous that the only responsible course of action is to work for their removal and destruction.
Many people think that the vision of a nuclear weapon-free world, a Global Zero, is utopic, or even irresponsible.
Similar arguments were once used to oppose the treaties banning biological and chemical weapons, cluster weapons and land mines. Nonetheless, the prohibitions became reality and most of these weapons are far less prevalent today as a result. Using them is taboo.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is aware that nuclear weapons disarmament presents far greater challenges than disarmament of the types of weapons I just mentioned. But there is no getting around the fact that the nuclear weapon states have committed, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to work towards disarmament. This is the ultimate objective of the treaty. Through its efforts, ICAN has reminded the nuclear weapon states that their commitment entails a genuine obligation, and the time to honour it is now!
In his Nobel lecture in 1959, Philip Noel-Baker took issue with the widely held opinion that complete nuclear disarmament is impossible to achieve in the real world. He quoted another Peace Prize laureate, Fridtjof Nansen:
"The difficult is what takes a little while; the impossible is what takes a little longer."
The people of ICAN are impatient and visionary, but they are not naïve. ICAN recognizes that the nuclear-armed states cannot eliminate their nuclear weapons overnight. This must be achieved through a mutual, gradual and verifiable disarmament process. But it is the hope of ICAN and the Norwegian Nobel Committee that an international legal ban, and broad popular engagement, will put pressure on all nuclear-armed states and expedite the process.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are two persons on the podium today who, each in their way, are outstanding representatives of the ICAN movement.
Madam Setsuko Thurlow, you were 13 years old when you experienced the bombing of Hiroshima. You have devoted your life to bearing witness to the events of 6 August 1945. You see it as your mission to describe the suffering, fear and death inflicted on your city. No one was spared. Little children, their parents, brothers and sisters, schoolmates and grandparents were killed. You say that war cannot be waged in this way, and that it must never happen again. You do not allow us to forget.
Beatrice Fihn, you are the Executive Director of ICAN and have the challenging task of uniting different organisations and interest groups in pursuit of a common goal. You are a splendid representative of the multitude of idealists who forgo an ordinary career and instead devote all of their time and skills to the work of achieving a peaceful world.
It is an honour to have you here as our guests, and we wish to express our deep and heartfelt gratitude for the work that you do. Our tribute also goes to all the individuals and organisations that you represent.
The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has a solid grounding in Alfred Nobel's will. The will specifies three different criteria for awarding the Peace Prize: the promotion of fraternity between nations, the advancement of disarmament and arms control and the holding and promotion of peace congresses. ICAN works vigorously to achieve nuclear disarmament. ICAN and a majority of UN member states have contributed to fraternity between nations by supporting the Humanitarian Pledge. And through its inspiring and innovative support for the UN negotiations on a Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, ICAN has played an important role in bringing about what in our day and age is equivalent to an international peace congress.
In closing, I would like to quote His Holiness Pope Francis, who recently declared: "Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, create nothing but a false sense of security. They cannot constitute the basis for peaceful coexistence between members of the human family, which must rather be inspired by an ethics of solidarity."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee shares this view. Moreover, it is our firm conviction that ICAN, more than anyone else, has in the past year given the efforts to achieve a world without nuclear weapons a new direction and new vigour.
Thank you.
(End)
Nobelprize.org
The Nobel Peace Prize 2017
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/world/list/201712/CK2017121102000059.html
東京新聞 TOKYO Web
【国際】
ノーベル平和賞 サーロー節子さん演説全文
2017年12月11日 夕刊
＞
ノーベル平和賞の授賞式で演説するサーロー節子さん＝１０日、オスロで（共同）
写真
十日オスロで行われた核兵器廃絶国際キャンペーン（ＩＣＡＮ（アイキャン））へのノーベル平和賞授賞式で被爆者サーロー節子さんが行った演説は次の通り。
◇
両陛下。ノルウェー・ノーベル賞委員会の高名なメンバーの皆さま。ここにいる、そして世界中にいる運動家の仲間たち。淑女、紳士の皆さま。
ＩＣＡＮの運動を形づくる傑出した全ての人々に成り代わってベアトリス（・フィン事務局長）と共にこの賞を受け取ることは大変な栄誉です。私たちは核兵器の時代を終わらせることができる、終わらせるのだという、かくも大きな希望を皆さま一人一人が私に与えてくれます。
座視しない
被爆者は、奇跡のような偶然によって広島と長崎の原爆を生き延びました。私は被爆者の一人としてお話しします。七十年以上にわたって私たちは核兵器の廃絶に取り組んできました。
私たちは、この恐ろしい兵器の開発と実験から危害を被った世界中の人々と連帯してきました。（核実験が行われた）ムルロア、エケル、セミパラチンスク、マラリンガ、ビキニといった長く忘れられた地の人々。土地と海を放射線にさらされ、人体実験に使われ、文化を永遠に破壊された人々と連帯してきました。
私たちは犠牲者であることに甘んじることはありませんでした。灼熱（しゃくねつ）の終末を即座に迎えることや、世界がゆっくりと汚染されていくことに対し、手をこまねいていることは拒否しました。いわゆる大国が、無謀にも私たちを核のたそがれから核の闇夜の間際へと送り込むことを、恐怖の中で座視することは拒否しました。私たちは立ち上がりました。生き延びた体験を分かち合いました。人類と核兵器は共存できないのだと声にしました。
叫び声聞こえた
きょう、この会場で皆さまには、広島と長崎で死を遂げた全ての人々の存在を感じてほしいと思います。雲霞（うんか）のような二十数万の魂を身の回りに感じていただきたいのです。一人一人に名前があったのです。誰かから愛されていたのです。彼らの死は、無駄ではなかったと確認しましょう。
米国が最初の原爆を私が住んでいた都市、広島に投下した時、私はまだ十三歳でした。私は今もあの朝を鮮明に覚えています。八時十五分、窓からの青みを帯びた白い閃光（せんこう）に目がくらみました。体が宙に浮かぶ感覚を覚えています。
静かな闇の中で意識を取り戻すと、倒壊した建物の中で身動きできないことに気付きました。級友たちの弱々しい叫び声が聞こえてきました。「お母さん、助けて。神さま、助けて」
そして突然、私の左肩に手が触れるのを感じました。「諦めるな。頑張れ。助けてやる。あの隙間から光が差すのが見えるか。あそこまでできるだけ速くはっていくんだ」。誰かがこう言うのが聞こえました。はい出ると、倒壊した建物には火が付いていました。あの建物にいた級友のほとんどは生きたまま焼かれ、死にました。そこら中が途方もなく完全に破壊されているのを目にしました。
幽霊のような人影が行列をつくり、足を引きずりながら通り過ぎていきました。人々は異様なまでに傷を負っていました。血を流し、やけどを負い、黒く焦げて、腫れ上がっていました。体の一部を失っていました。肉と皮膚が骨からぶら下がっていました。飛び出た眼球を手に受け止めている人もいました。おなかが裂けて開き、腸が外に垂れ下がっている人もいました。人間の肉体が焼けた時の嫌な悪臭が立ち込めていました。
このようにして、私の愛する都市は一発の爆弾によって消滅したのです。住民のほとんどは非戦闘員でした。彼らは燃やされ、焼き尽くされ、炭になりました。その中には私の家族と三百五十一人の級友が含まれています。
愚行を許さない
その後の数週間、数カ月間、数年間にわたって、放射線の後遺症により予測もつかないような不可解な形で何千もの人々が亡くなりました。今日に至ってもなお、放射線は人々の命を奪っています。
広島を思い出すとき、最初に目に浮かぶのは四歳だった私のおい、英治の姿です。小さな体は溶けて、肉の塊に変わり、見分けがつかないほどでした。死によって苦しみから解放されるまで弱々しい声で水が欲しいと言い続けました。
今この瞬間も、世界中で罪のない子どもたちが核兵器の脅威にさらされています。おいは私にとって、こうした世界の子どもたちを代表する存在となりました。核兵器はいつどんなときも、私たちが愛する全ての人々、いとおしく思う全てを危険にさらしています。私たちはこの愚行をこれ以上許してはなりません。
苦しみと生き延びるためのいちずな闘いを通じて、そして廃虚から復興するための苦闘を通じて私たち被爆者は確信に至りました。破局をもたらすこうした兵器について、私たちは世界に警告しなければならないのです。繰り返し私たちは証言してきました。
しかし、広島と長崎（への原爆投下）を残虐行為、戦争犯罪と見なすことをなお拒絶する人たちもいたのです。「正義の戦争」を終わらせた「良い爆弾」だったとするプロパガンダを受け入れたわけです。こうした作り話が破滅的な核軍拡競争をもたらしました。今日に至るまで核軍拡競争は続いています。
今も九つの国が都市を灰にし、地球上の生命を破壊し、私たちの美しい世界を未来の世代が住めないようにすると脅しています。核兵器の開発は、国家が偉大さの高みに上ることを意味しません。むしろ、この上なく暗い邪悪の深みに転落することを意味するのです。こうした兵器は必要悪ではありません。絶対悪なのです。
終わりの始まり
今年七月七日、世界の大多数の国々が核兵器禁止条約の採択に賛成した時、私は喜びでいっぱいになりました。私はかつて人類の最悪な側面を目撃しましたが、その日は最良の側面を目撃したのです。私たち被爆者は七十二年の間（核兵器が）禁止されることを待ち続けてきました。これを核兵器の終わりの始まりにしようではありませんか。
責任ある指導者であれば、必ずやこの条約に署名するに違いありません。署名を拒否すれば歴史の厳しい審判を受けることになるでしょう。彼らのふるまいは大量虐殺につながるのだという現実を抽象的な理論が覆い隠すことはもはやありません。「抑止力」とは、軍縮を抑止するものなのだということはもはや明らかです。私たちはもはや恐怖のキノコ雲の下で暮らすことはありません。
核武装した国々の当局者と、いわゆる「核の傘」の下にいる共犯者たちに言います。私たちの証言を聞きなさい。私たちの警告を心に刻みなさい。そして、自らの行為の重みを知りなさい。あなたたちはそれぞれ、人類を危険にさらす暴力の体系を構成する不可欠な要素となっているのです。私たちは悪の陳腐さを警戒しましょう。
世界のあらゆる国の、全ての大統領と首相に懇願します。この条約に参加してください。核による滅亡の脅威を永久になくしてください。
光に向かって
私は十三歳の時、くすぶるがれきの中に閉じ込められても、頑張り続けました。光に向かって進み続けました。そして生き残りました。いま私たちにとって、核禁止条約が光です。この会場にいる皆さんに、世界中で聞いている皆さんに、広島の倒壊した建物の中で耳にした呼び掛けの言葉を繰り返します。「諦めるな。頑張れ。光が見えるか。それに向かってはっていくんだ」
今夜、燃え立つたいまつを持ってオスロの通りを行進し、核の恐怖という暗い夜から抜け出しましょう。どんな障害に直面しようとも、私たちは進み続け、頑張り、他の人たちとこの光を分
