STATEMENT BY THE HONOURABLE MR. YOHEI KONO

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF JAPAN

 

Geneva, 14^th September 2006

 

President of the Conference on Disarmament

Distinguished delegates

 

At the outset, let me offer my heartfelt thanks to all of you for allowing me to speak on this auspicious day, the last formal plenary session for 2006.  As the Speaker of the House of Representatives I cannot go abroad while the Diet is still in session.  On this occasion while the Diet is out of session, I seized the opportunity to visit Geneva before attending the “G8 Parliamentary Speakers’ Meeting” in Saint Petersburg.  I have been actively engaged in disarmament issues, in particular nuclear disarmament, for many years and I currently chair the Association for the Promotion of International Disarmament of Japanese parliamentarians, which was established 25 years ago.  Therefore, they are not empty words when I say what an incredible honor it is to be addressing you today, the delegates to the Conference on Disarmament.

 

Mr. President

In terms of transforming the lives of people and changing the appearance of cities and rural communities alike, “the industrial revolution” of the 18^th and 19^th centuries was the greatest turning-point in the history of the human race.  Nevertheless, when we speak of impact to human survival, “the development of nuclear weapons” in the mid 20 century was no less profound than “the industrial revolution”.

 

This inhumane weapon of enormous destructive power, which continues to cause suffering to its survivors through radiation sickness long after the blast, was unfortunately used directly on two cities of my homeland – Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The atomic bombings killed 214,000 people within four months and even now many must endure the horrible after-effects.  Furthermore, the offspring of survivors must also live in constant fear of the potential after-effects.  Despite this, the governments to date have been unsuccessful at overcoming and containing the existence of “nuclear weapons”, a threat to human survival.

 

With the prospects of eliminating nuclear weapons clearly a difficult task to achieve in one step, the international community opted for a second-best policy of constructing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime, which entered into force 36 years ago in 1970.  As the main pillar of the international non-proliferation regime, the NPT has contributed greatly to the maintenance of peace and security.  This has been achieved through this regime, in which the nuclear weapon States (NWS) undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on nuclear disarmament, while the non-nuclear weapon States (NNWS) agree to forego the development of nuclear weapons and are guaranteed the peaceful uses of nuclear energy under international inspections.

 

Though, in recent years the NPT regime has regrettably been seriously shaken.  What has been the cause of this?  One such cause is that not only are the results of nuclear disarmament efforts by the nuclear weapon States insufficient, but it would appear there is a movement towards forcing opponents into submission through threats aided by nuclear weapons.  In order to increase confidence in the nuclear non-proliferation regime, the undertaking agreed to by the nuclear weapons States to pursue disarmament efforts and by the non-nuclear weapon States not to develop nuclear weapons must be strictly upheld.

 

I understand there is deep-rooted disagreement in some states for this regime, which recognizes some countries as nuclear weapon States while the others are not.  Even in Japan there was strong opposition from so called hawks against the ratification of the NPT.  If we focus solely on the notion of “sovereign equality” this certainly may be the case.

 

However, for the Japanese this brings to mind the Pacific naval disarmament issue of the early 20^th Century.  At the time public opinion in the young emerging nation of Japan boiled over “why Japanese naval tonnage was set considerably less than the US and Britain”.  This was one factor contributing to Japan’s withdrawal from the international cooperative system, and eventually its path to war.  As a consequence, this war caused tremendous damage and suffering in our neighboring countries, and also in our country millions of deaths including the nuclear destruction of two beautiful, historic cities.

 

The sentiment behind the countries who strongly appeal to “sovereign equality” is not beyond our comprehension.  Nonetheless, the mere pursuit of “power” is never a prudent path to travel.  Rather, I believe that the non-nuclear weapon States should embark on a path to strongly urge the nuclear weapon states to implement their undertakings towards nuclear disarmament while strictly complying with the NPT regime. 

 

The people of Japan, through directly confronting the reality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, know what kind of hardship people must endure under a nuclear attack.  However, the passage of 60 years has brought about the generational change in the leaders of countries including nuclear weapon States, and an increasing number of people do not know the terrible devastation generated by nuclear weapons.

 

We must be determined to pass down by all means this tragic reality of atomic bombings to the next generation of the world.  I have been informed many diplomats responsible for disarmament negotiations here have already visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including through involvement in the Disarmament Fellowship Program.  I hope you come away from this experience with the recognition that disarmament issues are not merely about manipulating “numbers”, but about the existence of humanity, or about whether to cause or avert incredible pain and anguish to people. 

 

The international community has long been concerned about the paralysis of the Conference on Disarmament.  However, this year, under the P6 initiative, it has come to our attention that the CD held substantive discussions on many various issues including a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).  The results of the focused debates have given us a certain amount of optimism.  While welcoming this shift, I strongly desire this will lead to further action.  I hope that you overcome the past, backward-looking situation of preventing progress through linkages and clear the way for a future circle of positive growth in which each agenda item is advanced according to its ripeness.

 

In particular, we believe the proposal put forward by the United States on an FMCT has a constructive significance.  This is a treaty that was agreed to in the “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament” at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, which I attended as the Foreign Minister of Japan, as a multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation measure to follow the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  The international community has earnestly craved for the immediate commencement of negotiations on an FMCT, and those feelings are only intensifying.

 

Of course, countries have different views concerning the draft treaty itself in its current state, but these differences should be resolved in the negotiations through the exchange of ideas and thoughts.  In order to seize the momentum given birth to during this year’s sessions and start actual negotiations in the new sessions next year, I hope that each country makes their utmost efforts to build consensus, even after the end of this year’s formal sessions.

 

Yesterday, I had a chance to visit the Museum of Art and History in Geneva, where many artillery shells, pistols and swords are displayed in locked glass cases.  I am hopeful that all the nuclear weapons in the entire world will be similarly stored in locked glass cases at the earliest possible date.

 

Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that the world is watching and anticipates momentous results next year from the Conference on Disarmament.

 

Thank you