A world without nuclear weapons

Translated from the Norwegian

With the exception of the efforts of a few dedicated players, there has been too little attention on nuclear disarmament in recent years. However, against the backdrop of today’s debate in the Storting (Norwegian parliament) on the white paper on disarmament and non-proliferation, the Government wishes to increase focus on this issue.

The process of nuclear disarmament that started in the 1990s has come to a standstill over the last few years. These efforts must be continued. There is much that can be done, and the benefits will be great if we succeed. US President-elect Barack Obama has signalled a determination to work towards nuclear disarmament. We consider this to be very positive.

The US and Russia have to be in the vanguard of disarmament efforts. Between them, these two countries account for more than 95% of the world’s nuclear arsenal. We would like to see them strengthen their bilateral disarmament agreements. The most important of these – START – will expire soon. New, ambitious targets need to be set.

Trust needs to be built between the US and Russia. There is too little trust today. This is why we are concerned that the US missile defence shield plans should not cause provocation. This is why we are asking Russia to return to the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE), which is so important for our own and the rest of Europe’s security.

Putting a stop to nuclear testing is also an important factor for disarmament. We are encouraging the US, China and the nuclear powers outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, so that it can enter into force.

The world has a large surplus of fissile material for both weapons and peaceful purposes. Negotiations on a prohibition on the production of fissile material for weapons purposes should be started immediately.

Non-nuclear-weapon states can also make a concrete contribution to nuclear disarmament. For many years, Norway has funded the dismantling of nuclear submarines in Russia, and we are supporting cooperation between Norwegian and UK institutions on the verification of nuclear disarmament. The British authorities have also welcomed this cooperation. We are pleased that Norwegian expertise can be used in a direct disarmament context.

Nuclear disarmament is closely linked to nuclear non-proliferation. Given the political realities of today’s world, nuclear disarmament on any appreciable scale is virtually unthinkable without water-tight non-proliferation systems.

We must not underestimate the significance of Iran’s, North Korea’s and other states’ ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. Today, more than 40 countries have the necessary technology to produce such weapons: some in the near future, others over a longer time frame. The risk of a domino effect is real. Iran and North Korea must not be allowed to set a dangerous precedent. Several countries in the Middle East have indicated an interest in acquiring or further developing nuclear technology, and there is uncertainty about Syria’s intentions in this area.

The development of civilian nuclear power is not part of Norway’s energy policy. The number of civilian nuclear power plants in the world will nevertheless increase considerably over the next years, regardless of Norway’s views on this matter. The problem is that the fuel produced for nuclear reactors can easily be misused for the production of nuclear weapons.

However, it is not necessary for all countries to produce their own fuel. It would be fully possible to establish an international fuel bank that provides countries with fuel and ensures the safe return of spent fuel. Norway supports the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in this area. We must make every effort to ensure non-proliferation.

I share the concern about the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Our strategy must be to ensure that dangerous fissile material is secured as well as possible. The proposed fuel bank should be seen in this perspective. Another potential threat is posed by the many civilian research reactors that are currently using highly enriched, weapons grade uranium, which could fall into the hands of terrorists. Norway has helped to establish a process for replacing highly enriched uranium with low enriched uranium in these types of reactor.

Norway has a long tradition of supporting a UN-led world order based on cooperation between states. This also applies to the area of disarmament and non-proliferation. We are seeking to increase focus on this issue in the UN General Assembly. It is also important that the Security Council is involved in these matters. The IAEA – the UN’s watchdog in the non-proliferation area – must be strengthened and given the resources it needs to carry out its inspection activities properly.

Norway is active in the global export control regime for various types of weapons and technology. We are also party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the other conventions prohibiting weapons of mass destruction.

NATO is another relevant organisation in this respect. We would like NATO to direct more attention to how the arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe could be reduced. We believe that nuclear weapons should have a less prominent position in international politics, and that NATO could play a leading role here. We are promoting this matter actively in NATO together with other allies.

We cooperate closely with the other Nordic countries in other settings. Sometimes we ally ourselves with the EU. And sometimes we join forces with representatives of groups that have different perspectives on disarmament. The seven-nation initiative is a mix of NATO countries, a nuclear weapons state and non-aligned countries (the UK, South Africa, Indonesia, Australia, Chile, Romania and Norway), which are working together with a view to forging global consensus on how nuclear weapons issues should be dealt with.

There is broad political agreement on these issues in Norway, which gives us credibility and weight in international arenas. Most of us share the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. I believe we also share the goal of achieving greater security for all countries through a lower level of armaments than we have today. All states have the right to safeguard their security. It is, however, essential that their efforts to safeguard their own security do not at the same time undermine the security of other states.