In Search of Resolution

[Music] We are still grappling with finding a solution to... get rid of nuclear weapons or how to deal with their existence, and moreover, we are grappling with the continuing crisis, tensions, wars in the world.

Each year, we're moving further and further away from 1945.

And with each successive generation, the task of reminding everyone of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons become more difficult, as it fades further into the past.

This obelisk in the desert of Southern New Mexico marks the beginning of the nuclear age.

The plaque reads Trinity Site where the world's first nuclear device was exploded on July 16th, 1945 at 5:29 AM Mountain time.

We knew the world would not be the same Since then, the struggle of dealing with the world's most destructive weapon has continued, Major funding provided by Carnegie Corporation of New York, supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security.

And additional major funding is provided by The Endeavor Foundation, whose objectives include promoting international cooperation and peaceful efforts to address seemingly intractable problems.

No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.

Albert Einstein [Music] On January 3rd, 2022, the following joint statement was issued by the leaders of the five nuclear weapon states.

We consider the avoidance of war between nuclear weapon states and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities.

We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

We remain committed to our nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT obligations.

Our breaking news this morning, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has begun.

Explosions rang out across the country minutes after President Putin announced the start of Russia's offensive.

[in Russian] Whoever tries to hinder us meaning more so to create threats to our country, to our people, to know that Russia's response will be immediate and it will lead you to such consequences that you have never encountered in your history.

Ukraine's Interior ministry says eight people have been killed in the shelling as the country's president gives a defiant national address.

[translator's voice] Ukraine Is now defending itself.

We will not give up our independence.

The right to live in our own country is of the highest value.

Thousands try to flee the capitol as Russia is condemned for choosing the path bloodshed and destruction.

It is President Putin who is bringing war back to Europe.

And in these dark hours, the European Union and its people stand by Ukraine and its people.

Ukraine's on an knife edge right now.

Uh, the invasion's under, and these people are probably just scratching their heads and thinking, what on earth is gonna happen next?

I'm speaking on behalf of the state, which is forced to defend itself, but has the formula for peace.

I'm speaking to everyone who wants to hear how to achieve peace.

[translator's voice] They were putting NATO infrastructure close our borders, and for decades, they were cultivating hatred to Russia.

Russia has shamelessly violated the core tenants of the United Nations charter.

No more important than the clear prohibition against countries taking the territory of their neighbor by force.

Remind them that our country also possesses various type like weapons.

And in some components we have more modern weapons than NATO countries.

And if the territorial integrity for our country is threatened to defend and protect our country and our people, we will use all the means that we have.

And I'm not bluffing.

Again, just today, president Putin has made overt nuclear threats against Europe and a reckless disregard for the responsibilities of the non-proliferation regime.

Ukraine wants peace.

Putin claims he had to act because Russia was threatened.

But no one threatened Russia.

How can one explain what's going on in Ukraine today?

I didn't expect a full scale invasion.

I didn't expect the horrific atrocities.

I didn't expect that Putin would press on with the war, even though he cannot possibly come out of this with any kind of strategic victory.

We were counting on some kind of lower level localized conflict, possibly a small scale.

But this, this was completely a, this was completely a shock.

I was almost...

I couldn't understad why they did it.

And when you look at those cities that have been destroyed, when you look at the places where the atrocities have taken place, they've taken place in the cities and in the places where the Russians and the Russian speakers are dominant.

They're killing the people supposedly trying to liberate.

Yes.

And for the language they speak.

For the language they speak.

For the language they are not supposed to speak, yes, in this city.

That's just to say at least that's absurd.

And the degree, you know, and the bottom line is...

I think they're committing a genocide.

Certainly war crimes, Certainly crimes against humanity.

Arguably a genocide.

What, what, what is happened?

What is going on?

These war crimes, which are utterly inexcusable, are the sign of an army that is not an army.

That's somehow been reduced to a mob.

I also think that the degree of concentration of power that Putin has now is such that nobody wants to say to him, this is not a good idea to do this.

Not on moral grounds, but, you know, you're talking about occupying and trying to overthrow the government of a country that is, has 44 million people.

And in land area, if you put Russia aside, is the largest in Europe.

Putin, uh, threatened the use of nuclear weapons.

How does that factor into this conversation?

You have to make a distinction between Russian nuclear doctrine, and the nuclear doctrine of NATO.

So the Russian nuclear doctrine is, if there's an existential threat to Russia, they will use nuclear weapons.

I can't imagine this war posing an existential threat to Russia because the United States and the rest of NATO have made it clear that they will not be fighting on Ukrainian territory.

Could the war lead to a situation, whether by design or by accident, where there is an attack on another NATO country?

If that occurs, then you've opened up the possibilities for all kinds of things to happen.

And so the nuclear question always lurks in the background of this conflict.

I strongly remember when President Bush came to Ukraine, and he has a speech in Ukrainian Parliament... And it has supplied facilities in Kiev that are treating victims of Chernobyl.

You should know that America's heart, the heart of all, hearts of all, went out to the people here at the time of Chernobyl.

About nuclear power, right?

That, uh, Bush said to Ukrainians, okay, guys, we are right now independent, has independence.

Uh, okay, that nuclear weapon for Ukraine must be destroyed.

Ukraine lives near a very powerful country, and as a last ditch resort, because no one ultimately will fight for Ukraine on Ukrainian territory, not NATO, not the United States.

Should the Ukrainians have nuclear...

Many Ukrainians right now, uh, told, uh, that if we keep nuclear weapon, The war would never have happened.

Uh, that, uh... Today is Russia doesn't aggressive invasion to Ukraine.

I think that's probably true.

Probably true, But what did the nuclear weapons really do for Putin?

That's the question.

Gave him freedom of action to believe that he could launch a conventionally armed attack against another country, a sovereign country.

And by the way, I don't think President Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

He threatened to use nuclear weapons because of the support for Ukraine.

So he wasn't threatening Ukraine so much as he was threatening those who support Ukraine.

One way or the other, this Ukraine war, or Russian Ukraine w, is going to have to be settled.

I don't know when I don't how, I don't with what outcome.

If you remember... An important Reykjavik and historical meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan.

Where... We did come close to at least putting on the table discussion of getting rid of all nuclear weapons.

That's what Gorbachev was proposing to Reagan.

But then again, they found other problems and other excuses, and, did not accomplish what they reportedly were about to accomplish.

Which was an agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Its a pity.

Let's hope that some.

sometime in the future, this possibility crops up again.

We really stopped fearing nuclear war, to be honest.

Yes, that's quite shocking.

But yes, we do not really fear nuclear war anymore.

Let us offer one minute of silent prayer.

Everyone, please rise.

[gong rings] [gong rings] [gong rings] [gong rings] [gong rings] My name is Tatsujiro Suzuki.

I am a professor of Nagasaki University, vice director, of the director of, uh, Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.

Tatsu?

Yes?

What's your reaction to these photographs?

Well, I have, I have seen plenty of those pictures, again.

Um...

The impact of the bomb is so, uh... devastating, and...

This...

I don't know how to say, um...

Okay, this one, I know this, this picture very well, but, I have seen many times, but, I think she... And probably her brother or something, I think.

I think it's very sad to see this.

But still, she has to leave.

Even after her brother died.

And, again... She must have also suffered radiation illness eventually.

What are the consequences, as you look at these pictures, for today's world?

This, this shows...

If the nuclear weapons is used...

Even with this, with the... Modern... Medical technologies...

Probably very difficult to cure them, and... And there's no way to... Help those people.

That's the...

The so-called humanitarian consequences of atomic bomb use.

There's no way... That we can save people if the bomb was used.

You know, um... Only eight kilograms of plutonium is needed to make one bomb.

25 kilograms of uranium 235 is needed to make one bomb.

If you had in your hand Yes, Show me how much six kilograms would be.

Six kilograms like this.

Like a soft ball.

And... 25 kilograms HEU is a little bit bigger.

Probably.

Uh, but it's, it's not that big.

So only six kilograms of Plutonium, like this, will make a one bomb.

Very scary.

Very scary.

The existence of nuclear weapons is a continuing danger, which came into focus, once again, at the International Humanitarian Conference in Vienna, Austria on June 20th, 2022.

Humanitarian considerations have underpinned the logic of disarmament and arms control agreements.

The grim and transformational impact of nuclear weapons was clear and immediate.

Robert Oppenheimer, one of the fathers of the atomic bomb, remarked shortly after the first bomb was successfully detonated.

We knew the world would not be the same.

I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu... is trying to persuade the prince that he should do his duty.

And, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form, and says, Now I am become death, The destroyer of worlds.

For those who believe that it is possible to have a limited nuclear war, Barak Obama had the answer.

One nuclear weapon, exploded in one city.

Be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo, or Tel Aviv, Paris, or Prague, could kill hundreds of thousands of people.

And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be.

For our global safety, our security, our society, our economy.

To our ultimate survival.

And for all those who believe that amassing more weapons is the answer, or that nuclear disarmament is too risky, listen to President Kennedy And above all, while defending our own vital interest, Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.

To adopt that kind of cause in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy of a collective death wish for the world.

The time has come to cultivate a new mindset.

Where peace and security are approached in theory and practice, as an inclusive and collective endeavor based on equity, trust, dialogue, and solidarity.

We wanted it to be a credible standaloe conference that really, um, that wasn't intended to be political, but it was intended o be an expert meeting.

As you know, at 8:15 AM 6th of August, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima.

You first had a blinding flash, then the heat, a few moments later, the blast wave.

And then, the whirlwind.

And then, the fire that engulfed the entire city, and left thousands dead.

Everything within a radius of one kilometer from the point of explosion was obliterated to the point that even buildings foundations were unrecognizable.

All around, within four to five kilometers of the bomb's epicenter houses were reduced to rubbles, trees uprooted, vehicles hurled about, and railway lines twisted.

90% of all buildings in that perimeter were entirely destroyed or badly damaged.

About 80,000 people were killed immediately by the explosion, and almost as many suffered serious injuries.

Many thousands died in the weeks and months that followed from the burns they sustained or from the effects of the radiation.

Internal hemorrhaging, cancer, leukemia.

The Japanese Red Cross Society Hospital had miraculously remained somewhat functional, a total of 792 staff members and volunteer workers, many of them from other regions of Japan who were immediately mobilized to assist, treated some 30,000 patients during the three weeks following the detonation.

On 29th of August, an ICRC delegate, Fritz Bilfinger, was the first international organization representative to arrive in Hiroshima and witnessed the scene of the disaster.

And I would like to read an extract of the telegram that he wrote.

It goes like this, Visited Hiroshima 30th.

Conditions appalling.

Stop.

City wiped out.

80% all hospitals destroyed or seriously damaged.

Inspected two emergency hospitals.

Conditions beyond description.

Full stop.

Why am I retelling this?

The story that we've heard so many times.

It's to illustrate that in the aftermath of the bombing, not only is there little infrastructure left, and few people left to treat, but there's also no infrastructure and no people to actually come to the rescue.

And that is the case today, as it was then, [speaking in Japanese] The anxiety, anguish, and suffering of the Hibakusha is not something that fades away.

It's something which continues throughout their lives.

[speaking in Japanese] Not only does it not disappear, it is something which continues to grow even larger.

Their anxiety and fear about ourselves, about our children, our grandchildren, and about all of humanity.

We should be much more... approaching these discussions with more humility, understanding how little we actually know for sure.

It's important to know the explosive power f nuclear weapons, the measurement that we physicists use to measure the size.

And it's called the yield.

And it's measured in 1000 tons of conventional explosive equivalent.

This is the, the kiloton or kT.

And just to show you what this means, I have this little dot.

This is one ton of explosive, so really a massive amount.

10 of these dots is the biggest conventional weapon that there is in the world's arsenals.

And one kiloton would actually look like this.

It's 1000 of these dots.

And if you want to describe weapons that were used, like the weapons in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I would actually have to shrink this, It wouldn't fit on the screen.

You have to actually make it smaller because it was 21 kilotons in Nagasaki and 13 kilotons in Hiroshima.

And, today's arsenals, most weapons actually are even bigger, so they have a hundred kilotons and more.

So a hundred of these dots with... you know, a thousand dots.

What would happen if this would be used?

Now go back to the one kiloton.

And I actually focused on the effect of such a weapon on our conference center here, because I thought this is what people can actually imagine.

So if you look at the map, you see this little star and the dash line shows where you can walk in five minutes.

So you basically get to the river, roughly, or to the bridge, or to the train station.

And this five minute circle is actually, um, you know, the radius of the strong blast wave, that a nuclear weapon explosion of one kiloton would produce, the 12 psi blast wave.

The, the pressure.

This over pressure would destroy this building here, and it would basically kill everyone.

One of my inspirations has been the Einstein-Russell Manifesto, which talked about the need to eliminate nuclear weapons and the need to eliminate war.

And the principle, and the path that they identified to that goal, that set of goals, was, as they said, remember your humanity and forget the rest.

That this is not a problem that national perspectives, or nationalism, or national institutions can get us to an answer.

It has to be ways that transcend ideas about nationalism and who we are other than as a collective human community.

And if we look around the world, the majority of people actually live in countries that rely on nuclear weapons in one way or another for their security, despite the all the risks risks that you, you have pointed out.

So my question to all of you is what really are the obstacles for the governments, the policy makers, for the people to, to understanding the, those nuclear risks and the combination of nuclear risks, and what, what they, um... what kind of threat they pose We've got no... common approach to the way the international system should be run anymore.

We've got big generational changes, and people don't know what happened before, don't know the risks.

We have number of authoritarian leaders now rising.

We have authoritarian governments.

This is very different... to a, a sort of a mutual... shared respect and understanding for these types of weapons systems that were in the Cold War.

If even a fraction of the existing nuclear weapons, which have been quite diminished over time, There were, at one point, there were 70 thousand nuclear weapons in the world.

Now there are only about 13 thousand.

But only a fraction of these 13 thousands, if they detonate, would be enought to, uh, end with civilization.

We have a multitude of scenarios, worldwide, happening simultaneously, right now where nuclear conflict is at least plausible.

Uh, so it's obvious to... to me that we are living on borrowed time If we continue with that, uh... with the approach that we... that we still, well, that the world still follows on nuclear weapons.

The people that have significant decision making power in governments, world leaders, presidents, prime ministers, they are very much bound by the kinds of narratives and stories that we all tell about arms and disarmament.

So, I really feel like this influence is already... We already... we're already able to..., impose that influence through... Research, through raising awareness...

Using art... social media platforms, YouTube.

And, I for example, myself, doing a YouTube video cast, where I try to raise awareness about nuclear issues.

Hi everyone, this is Nuclear pep talk, and I'm Kseniia Pirnavskaia, your local guide into Nuclear World.

Let's say, that someone decides to explode a nuclear weapon somewhere around my house.

As you may see, these are...

These are the circles that represent different kinds of damage that might happen to the people, buildings, and everything around the ground zero.

You know, I lived in Russia for, for 16 years, and then, I did an exchange year in the United States.

So I actually was able to see, you know, both worlds, when I was a young teenager.

And back then, you know, the situation was not that bad, though it was 2014.

So, um, I mean, it had already started with Ukraine and Crimea.

I just see my, my role is in a... giving them a chance , and helping them to... become better informed citizens, being be better experts, and giving them platform for their voices to be heard.

I'd like to congratulate all 10 of the champions who were selected amongst the 6,515 applicants from 157 countries in the world.

I mean, that's just amazing.

Hi, only been working in this field... Um, 27 years... As a South African, we came late to the field of disarmament and, and non-proliferation, having been a, a problem country ourselves prior to that.

But in '91, we joined the NPT, and we came back into the fold, the international fold in 1994.

And I've been involved in disarmament since '94.

These issues have not gone away, and it's important to educate young people, to actually be active in addressing issues which are important with their own security.

You're inheriting this planet from the older folks like myself, and this is the planet that you need to ensure that you are improving.

So anything that you can do, now to make that future a better future and a future, hopefully with less weapons, or absolutely no nuclear weapons, all the better.

And for you to speak up, so that people that are in government, and are working on these issues hear what you have to say.

My path to here was... Kind of like I had a background in terrorism, counter-terrorism and transnational security.

Especially... at a time where we had a lot of personal experiences as a country in 2016, 2017.

And then, that introduced me to nuclear terrorism.

And then that kind of led the way to nuclear policy.

I was able to work with refugees at the height of the Syrian refugee crisis and just seeing so much suffering, and people fleeing their homes, and seeing an absolutely different response than what we're seeing now with, uh, the Ukrainian refugees being welcomed in.

It's a really stark contrast.

Yeah, and just seeing how much suffering there was.

It really made me think of, okay, we have to do something about this, and you really have to work down to those root causes.

So... Kind of getting rid of the root causes of conflict was one of the things.

And disarmament seems to make a lot of sense.

I got quite into the technological side of things.

And how artificial intelligence is, um, being increasingly mixed with nuclear proliferation.

We throw around the word dialogue so often that it becomes so watered down... as a solution.

But, really the importance and the power of dialogue.

And I have been involved in dialogue programs, including a State Department program on dialogue, you know, religious pluralism, and...

I have seen the impact that it can have.

I'm... part of the generation that came after the post... after the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994, in Rwanda.

So my parents lived through the horror by genocide.

As refugees...

Losing relatives...

They owned a lot of things, and things disappeared... out of the blue.

And... That's what basically derived my motivation, because, every single time I see arms, I feel like the world is armed.

Whenever governments are spending on buying more arms rather than building and creating peace, I feel like we are leading to a threat.

Anytime soon, you could have another breakdown, just what we had in 1994.

What drives me from a very young age is to... save, you know, my family.

I come from South Korea, under the nuclear umbrella, and, we've been always being threatened by our neighbor.

And, so... That's really what kind of like... drives me... That to save, you know, my family...

But also to save, now, working for the UN, is to save the succeeding generation of the scourge of war.

Why is it important that the young learn about this?

I said to the group, this is about their future.

They will be much more impacted than us.

Because it's their future, and the future depends on today.

Unless we change course today, the future is not going to change.

Um, and, and because it's their future, I think they should be at the table, making decisions, part of the decisions about their future.

I told these young people, but just don't talk to, you know, people who share your opinion.

You have to talk to people who have opposite opinions from yours, in a civilized way.

Demonstrate that you can talk and resolve your differences and find a common ground.

You know, nuclear weapons are our biggest threat, I'd say, at this moment.

Moving forward with that, it's...

It's difficult to get people to understand how things can change, but I think we're at the point where everyone knows things need to change.

I think the most important thing is that they see themselves as a player, that they can play a part in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation and arms control.

The one thing that keeps me going are my, uh, my students.

the younger, uh, people... the next generation.

And so, uh, I, I really am, uh... hopeful, that those, uh, behind me, and the others who are here today, will take their kind of rightful places.

So they are grappling with many issues.

And yet among many of them, I see this... optimism, this desire to change the world.

These are about issues of mass destruction.

Everyone has an interest in it, and we should make sure that decisions that are made on these issues are made based on different perspectives.

A different approach was in evidence in Vienna, at the First Meeting of the States Parties of TPNW.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Those who have joined the treaty are now challenging those who have not yet signed the treaty, including the nuclear weapon states.

I declare open the First Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Just the words, "I declare the meeting open," Pronounced by the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, that already provoked an applause.

The atmosphere, though, it's, it's weird.

It's half jubilant, because the treaty's in force, we have the first meeting, everybody's kind of here with, uh, a business-like work attitude.

And at the same time, a number of delegations brought up the fact that there is a war going on.

Um, there is an invasion of Ukraine, and nuclear threats have been issued, and nuclear facilities have been attacked, in the course of this war already.

We are at the threshold moment in the debate about nuclear weapons.

And I think what, what, what we have done, and what this movement has done, is given, is given agency, it's given agency back to states, who are disenfranchised in this debate.

And it's given a lot of agency to civil society as well.

With the entry into force of this treaty, in January, 2021, the legal gap was filled.

Nuclear weapons are now comprehensively prohibited under international law, as other weapons of mass destruction have been for decades.

This is an extraordinary and transformative achievement.

On behalf of ICAN and our 635 partner organizations, I would like to express our profound gratitude to all the states parties, the signatures, and all the other governments that worked with such determination to bring this treaty into being.

The TPNW is another, is a hope.

Let's see if it materializes.

The countries that have nuclear weapons, the five countries recognized by the NPT, and the other four, if they realize that the path towards security is not through the promise of destruction or the threat of destruction, it is rather through the threat of, to the promise of construction.

Of building, and this is what TPNW intends to do, is to build the bridges, to build the path towards disarmament.

As I said in the opening meeting, where every indicator on nuclear weapons is pointing in the wrong direction, we point very clearly in the right direction.

And we are saying, because of the evidence on what these weapons would do also to us, and how risky this whole thing is, that we think this is completely illegitimate, and it should therefore be unlawful.

Uh, there are of course, uh, questions, there are, there are... doubts, uh, about the TPNW, and have been expressed by the nuclear weapon states.

But I think that... the way to clarify these things is precisely to sit down and talk, and to explain to each other what the, what the difficulties are.

Uh, I've heard an interesting anecdote.

I haven't yet figured out whether this is true or not, that says that in the, in Chinese, uh, language, that there's an idiogram for crisis, which when you write it, it combines the two elements of of danger and opportunity.

And... there's... so much to that in this business of looking at a crisis that you have, like the Russian invasion of, of Ukraine, and trying to put your brains in, in, in gear, and try to find, is there somehow some way that this crisis can be not only resolved, or turned around, or paused, but can open up new opportunities to reexamine old questions that had that need to be addressed and haven't been.

At the United Nations in New York, the symbols of a shattered globe and twisted gun are constant reminders of the ongoing struggle over disarmament, while inside negotiations and dialogues continue to take place.

After a delay of two years due to covid, delegates returned on August 1st, 2022 for the 10th review conference of the Nuclear Non -Proliferation Treaty, known as NPT.

A treaty, which has been in effect since 1970.

Well, as we gather here for the 10th Non-Proliferation Trey review conference, we are seeing states talk about the many troubles that the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament enterprise are facing today.

[in Spanish] We have four weeks to achieve our goal, a consensus result that strengthens the implementation of the three pillars of the treaty : nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

I do believe that I was called into this profession, which is diplomacy, for a call to help good causes.

And I believe that... disarmament and non-proliferation is one such as good causes.

And I do believe that... if everyone were to work on these issues, and really pay attention to the importance of these issues, maybe the world would be different.

It gives me great pleasure to invite his Excellency, Mister Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations to address the conference.

This conference has been long delayed, but its importance and urgency remain undiminished.

It takes place at the critical juncture for our collective peace and security.

Almost 13 thousand nuclear weapons are now being held in arsenals around the world.

All these... at a time when the risks of proliferation are growing, guardrails to prevent escalation are weakening.

I really believe that unless we start pushing for nuclear disarmament, one way or another, we may risk another nuclear weapon being used again.

As Pope Francis said, that human, I mean...

The use of nuclear weapons goes against our human dignity.

Today, I have come to this review conference driven by a strong sense of urgency.

The division within the international community has become only greater.

In particular, the threat to use nuclear weapons by Russia.

in it's aggression against Ukraine, has contributed to worldwide concern that yet another catastrophe by nuclear weapon use is a real possibility.

Russian military aggression against Ukraine provoked dangerous misbalance in the existing internal security system after Russia has breached every existing norm of international law waging its war against Ukraine.

Well, clearly one of the fissures at this conference is the the anger and frustration by much of the world about Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The... blatant nuclear threats by President Putin, against any country that might interfere with their invasion.

So that's a clear, uh... area of disagreement.

It's gonna make it hard for the diplomats, in the next, uh, few days and weeks to come together on practical steps, that are gonna be necessary to work together.

So we'll see if they can do that.

I now give the floor to the Russian Federation.

[translator's voice] Wee repeatedly stated that the activities of our armed forces in no way undermine nuclear security in Ukraine.

The Russian military is guarding these power plants with one goal, and one goal only.

To prevent... Ukrainian nationalist groups, as well as foreign mercenaries, from using the situation in the country to carry out nuclear provocations, which would have catastrophic consequences.

I just would like to remind distinguished Russian colleague that not Ukrainian forces are on the territory of the Russian Federation, but, in opposite, Russian military forces invaded Ukraine.

And now... on the territory of Ukraine.

We don't need... the protection of... nuclear facilities by... Russian military forces.

We have our own, own... capabilities for this purpose.

Russia's aggression against Ukraine is a brazen violation of international law, including the United Nations Charter.

And...

It's also contrary to the rules-based international order that we all seek to uphold.

But critically, and it's directly relevant, to what brings us together this month... for the NPT Review Conference... Its actions are also directly contrary to the assurances that it provided to Ukraine in 1994, in the so-called Budapest memorandum.

Assurances of Ukraine's sovereignty and independence that were vital to giving Ukraine the confidence to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited when the Soviet Union dissolved, and that were left on its territory.

So... What message does this send to any country around the world that may think that it needs to have nuclear weapons to protect, to defend, to deter, aggression against its sovereignty and independence?

The worst possible message.

Barbara Tuchman, the great historian, wrote a book called The March of Folly, based on 400 years of leaders following exactly that method, leading to oblivion.

To loss of wars, to loss of, of, of great positions of authority.

Uh, and yet they continue over and over again.

It's, it's, uh... a tragedy, but it's one that is part of the reality of public life.

The question is... How is the security f the whole world... endangered... or enhanced...

by the existence, the continuing existence of nuclear weapons?

Not only the existence, but their continuing development, improvement, by those who possess them.

And this is the... problem, I think, that is still posed, in spite of the NPT.

The NPT did not solve that problem.

So...

When you look at the NPT, you have 191 states that are parties to that treaty.

186 of those countries have already given up nuclear weapons.

They're the non-nuclear weapons states.

It's just those five countries that, that still have them.

So we're, we're... well underway, claiming that we have established a global norm, against, certainly, against the spread of these weapons, but, increasingly, against the very existence of these weapons.

And this helps to explain this, this new treaty that was concluded a few years ago, called the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

It does not include the nuclear weapon states, but it, it includes language that tries to de-legitimize the existence of nuclear weapons, not just their spread.

I will repeat the insertion that we are proposing is made.

After responsibility of all of all state parties to the treaty.

Comma... With the nuclear weapons states having a particular responsibility for disarmament.

And then chair, we would propose that, that whole paragraph, the last sentence, ends with, And to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

And to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

I do feel compelled to... Point out however, that, to the argument, that the TPNW has... Has now expressly prohibited... nuclear weapons by international law...

In fact, no such prohibition exists.

It is well established under international law, that treaty based rules only bind the state's parties that adhere to that treaty.

And unless the treaty is universal, it cannot be said to have established a comprehensive international legal prohibition.

And we fully recognize, that it's a difficult, attempting toreconcile the various views that are, are being expressed from the floor, and we really do appreciate all your efforts in that regard.

One day, nuclear weapons should be abolished.

They are not against abolition, they're not against... against eliminating the weapons.

But they say, and many of them say that, first you have to have, uh, conditions.

They are not, they don't specify very clearly what these conditions are.

But, uh, they have to do with... An atmosphere... Of peace, of understanding.

If you don't have peace, then you cannot have disarmament.

And the question is what you put first?

Peace before disarmament, or disarmament as a condition for peace.

And that is basically the conundrum which you, which you find.

After four weeks of negotiations, on August 26th, the final day of the NPT, it came down to one nuclear weapon state, deciding whether or not to agree to join the other 190 nations in what is called consensus.

A very elusive goal, with different interpretations for all those attending the NPT.

May I now ask if the conference is willing to adopt part one of the draft final document as contained in document NPT slash CONF 2020 slash CRP one slash revision two.

May I take it at the conference wishes to proceed accordingly?

I see that one delegation is asking for the floor.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

[translator's voice] The draft that we have before us is a reflection of complex discussions, and also complex circumstances, external circumstances, surrounding the holding of our conference.

All of the, the delegates... understand...

This is not an ordinary NPT review conference.

I think they understand very well the gravity of the situation.

Our delegation... Has one key objection on some paragraphs, Which are blatantly political in nature.

At the end of the conference...

The... Is gonna be the decision hour when...

The heads of state or some governments are gonna have to make decisions about whether or not to support certain... proposals and action steps.

There's only five of these paragraphs, only five.

They're working within a certain set of parameters.

So...

Unfortunately...

There is no consensus on this document.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation for his statement.

I see that at this point the conference is not in a position to achieve agreement on its substantive work.

The fact that we came as close as we did did to a census final document.

It was basically one country that, you know, the Russian Federation, which brought down this, this... this, uh, conference.

We knew that the war in Ukraine was going to cast a shadow on the review conference.

For whatever reasons, I think that, uh, in Moscow, word was, was sent to the delegation here that they could not live... with the language.

But I thought that once we moved into more the technical discussions and the, and the end game, it was not going to come back into every aspect of our, our negotiations.

But unfortunately, that was not the case.

And I now declare the 10th review conference of the parties to the Treaty of the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons closed.

And I've seen the horrible consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when, two weeks ago I met with the Hibakusha, those survivors... And the, the, the... stories that they told me.

About being four or five years old, and seeing the explosions of their heads, and all their families being killed, and houses destroyed, and the consequences that they have to suffer throughout their lives is something no other human being should be going through.

Every August 6, on the anniversary of the bombing in Hiroshima, lanterns are lit and floated down the Motoyasu River, memorializing the 140 thousand lives lost.

Three days later, in Nagasaki, tribute is paid to the 80 thousand lives lost there, on August 9th, 1945.

Today, many continue to seek a way to resolve the existence of the most destructive weapon ever created.

The world order seems to be changing.

And, and that's what I'd be looking, looking forward to see.

what kind of... What kind of values, what kind of leaders are going to... To emerge?

I'm, I'm still, um...

Waiting for the moment when we can have a meaningful engagement between those who, for a long time have been opposing nuclear weapons, and striving for their ban.

And those who have them.

If we don't do something about it, nuclear weapons are going to be used.

And, ah, umm... And that actually really frightens me.

It's a exclusively human made problem, that only requires political will.

But I really think that disarmament is about courage.

Do you know why?

Because there's so much fear that these weapons, especially nuclear weapons, poses... on people.

And because of that fear, people feel like, okay, we need nuclear weapons...

So for me, disarmament, going back to what I said, is like, courage... And how to fight that fear.

[Music] [Music] Major funding provided by Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security.

More information is available at Carnegie.org.

And additional major funding is provided by The Endeavor Foundation.

Whose objectives include promoting international cooperation, and peaceful efforts to address seemingly intractable problems.

In Search of Resolution is dedicated to Vartan Gregorian, whose transformational life story continues to be an inspiration.

This documentary, In Search of Resolution, is part three of The Nuclear World Project.

For further information, go to www.thenuclearworld.org.

Licensing for the educational and institutional feature length version of In Search of Resolution is available at videoproject.org, or by calling 1-800-475-2638.

The home use DVD is available for $29.95 plus shipping and handling.

This offer is made by American Public Television.