INTERVIEW/ Alexander Kmentt: Focus should be on anti-humanitarian nature of nuclear weapons

With the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki next year, there still is a long way to go to achieve a “world without nuclear weapons,” which U.S. President Barack Obama called for in his historic address in Prague in 2009.

Alexander Kmentt, director for Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation of the Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, said in an interview with The Asahi Shimbun that his recent visits to Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced him that more focus on the anti-humanitarian nature of nuclear weapons could lead to a breakthrough on the issue.

Kmentt’s native Austria will host the third international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in Vienna in December.

The career diplomat urges the international community to change the way it talks about nuclear disarmament.

Excerpts from the interview follow:

* * *

Question: What is the purpose of the third international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in Vienna in December?

Alexander Kmentt: The purpose of the conference from the Austrian perspective is to create and generate as much momentum for nuclear disarmament as possible. We think that some of the key findings are clear. For instance, the consequence of nuclear weapons use, if you look at health, environment, social order, economy, food security, these consequences are far greater than we had previously thought, and there are research findings suggesting that the consequence of the next nuclear weapons use would be far greater than the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We will focus on several aspects of the consequences of nuclear weapons, including hearing testimonies, and we will also look at some of the consequences of the time of nuclear weapons tests. Similarly, look at the risks of human error and technical error and so on, lots of information has become available on very near misses in the past. So the risks are also considerably graver than we were led to believe. Nuclear weapons are complex machines like every other complex machine; they cannot be absolutely fail-safe.

We believe that the focus on humanitarian consequences and risks of nuclear weapons is an extremely important development and has the potential to refocus the international community on the urgency of nuclear disarmament to change the way we talk about nuclear weapons. That’s the reason why the Austrian government decided to host this conference, to push for more progress on nuclear disarmament. We hope to pull together the key findings of the conference in Vienna and two previous meetings in Norway (March 2013) and Mexico (February 2014). The conference will be summarized by a chair’s summary. We hope to take this to the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, which will take place in New York in April and May next year, to push for concrete progress.

Q: You visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the first time. What did you learn there?

A: A lot because I have a lot of theory and knowledge of nuclear weapons but being there, speaking to hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors), being at the museums, imagining what happened, it’s unimaginable but to be there to understand it better I learned a lot, especially talking to so many people was excellent. I met Mr. (Sumiteru) Taniguchi, for instance. I knew the photo of his injuries (as a consequence of the atomic bombing in Nagasaki) for a long time. I couldn’t believe that I met him in person. This was very moving.

I feel very much energized in the preparation of the Vienna conference because it shows that seeing the devastation that happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the human suffering makes me believe that this humanitarian approach is the right way to look at nuclear weapons. They are security issues in many countries but also they are extremely unbelievably cruel weapons.

Q: The five nuclear weapon states under the NPT, or the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China, did not take part in the two previous “humanitarian” conferences in Norway and Mexico. How could you persuade them to join the next Vienna conference?

A: We hope more countries will come to Vienna than in Mexico (146 countries participated), including some of the nuclear weapon states. We hope that some of them will change their position and participate because I believe it’s a mistake not to engage in this important initiative.

Q: I’ve heard that the United States is interested in joining, perhaps in an observer status?

A: We are in contact with the United States as we are in contact with other countries. I think the United States is interested in learning about our plans. And it’s true that so far the discussion with the United States has been very positive. Of course, no final decision has been made. I think it’s clearly in the interests of the nuclear weapon states to participate because this humanitarian focus will not disappear. It enjoys growing interest and support by more and more states and a large part of civil society. Nuclear weapon states should have a very clear interest to not be outside of this discussion. I personally believe that the United States has realized this and is exploring ways to participate. We hope it will be successful.

Q: The nuclear weapon states as well as their allies, including Japan, seem to be very cautious about the debate because it would eventually lead to a discussion about a certain legally binding procedure like the debate you experienced in the Mexico conference.

A: I can only say we will focus on the consequences and on the risks of this issue. Since nuclear weapon states have these weapons, and non-nuclear weapon states have urgent concerns and questions, it’s important for nuclear weapon states to come and engage with us. This is where a collaboration of civil society and an increasing number of states having started to approach nuclear weapons from a different way. We only talk about nuclear weapons from a security policy approach. So let’s try to change the way we talk about nuclear weapons. The debate should be understandable not only for diplomats and security experts but for ordinary people in civil society. The humanitarian approach really should be something that should unite everybody.

Q: During the speeches in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you mentioned that the NPT is in serious trouble and losing credibility. Could you explain it in detail?

A: The NPT is the only treaty that contains a legally binding obligation for nuclear disarmament and continues to be the most important treaty. In this treaty, over the course of many years, very strong commitments have been made by the nuclear weapon states to make progress on nuclear disarmament. The latest one was in 2010 when all member states agreed on the action plan on nuclear disarmament. But if we see the situation after four years, less than a year before the next NPT review conference, where we are suppose to assess what has been taken in terms of urgent steps to implement this action plan, we need to realize that very little has been achieved. On the fundamentals, we have, of course, since the end of the Cold War, seen a reduction of nuclear weapons. This is extremely important. I don’t say that this is not important. The incredible number of nuclear weapons produced in the Cold War has been reduced now to a level of about 16,000. But each of these weapons has a destructive force far exceeding the nuclear weapons used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite reductions, we are far from a world without nuclear weapons and in the doctrines of nuclear weapon states, in the security approach, nuclear weapons still play an extremely important role, a fundamental role.

But at the same time, we see extremely significant financial investments in nuclear weapon states in the nuclear weapons infrastructure. Compared to the very welcome reduction of numbers, there is a trend in the other direction, which is very disconcerting. Rich countries would decide to allocate very significant amounts of money in the modernization and sustainment of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon states seem to be set on relying on nuclear weapons for the long term. So I believe more and more non-nuclear weapon states are becoming to realize that while the nuclear weapon states have a commitment on paper (the NPT articles and its action plans), the actions that have been taken are not living out these words on paper.

Q: Would you believe that the NPT is still durable or useful for the purpose of nuclear weapons disarmament and non-proliferation?

A: If we believe that the NPT is an important treaty, which Austria does, we need to focus a lot on giving more credibility to Article 6, and we believe that focus on the humanitarian consequences is absolutely in line with supporting the NPT. NPT Article 6 is the only legally binding international obligation for nuclear disarmament. Now it is being challenged, first of all, because you have several countries possessing nuclear weapons that are not part of the NPT, and it’s being challenged because nuclear weapon states’ implementation of Article 6 is, at least in the eyes of many, is not going as well as it should, and there are even serious questions as to what extent nuclear disarmament is actually being pursued because of modernization programs in nuclear weapon states.

At the same time, we have four countries outside the NPT (India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) that have nuclear weapons. This trend also doesn’t look very good because nuclear technology is no longer confined to a handful of highly developed countries. Nuclear technology is becoming more and more accessible, so the decision to move to nuclear weapons is more and more becoming an overly political one rather than one of capability and scientific knowledge as opposed to the case in the 20th century. We are in the situation where the states that already have nuclear weapons continue to insist on the importance of nuclear weapons for their own security. We have several countries outside of the NPT building up their nuclear weapons program.

At the same time, we have more and more states getting closer to the capability of developing nuclear weapons themselves. There will always be countries who perceive their own military power to be either better or worse compared to another one. All of this combined as rationale to develop nuclear weapons as status symbols makes for a situation where the trend to explore proliferation almost inevitable unless it is possible to fundamentally change the discourse on nuclear weapons.

Q: The nuclear weapon states insist that they take a so-called “step-by-step” approach for nuclear disarmament, and the Japanese government supports it as “realistic.” However, it seems that there is no time frame and a deadline for concluding negotiations.

A: The step-by-step approach is very logical but it’s not working as well as it should. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has not been entered into force since it was adopted 18 years ago. The next step, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), hasn’t even begun to be negotiated because we can’t agree on the program of the work at the Conference on Disarmament (CD). So, it is no longer possible to repeat that step-by-step approach if it becomes increasingly clear that it’s not actually working.

Q: More and more, citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as international NGOs are demanding governments to start negotiations for a legally binding procedure such as a Nuclear Weapons Convention and so on.

A: It’s true that some NGOs are pushing for a particular approach or a ban treaty. If you look at the position of states, there is a broad range of views. So there is no clear picture as to what unites the states that participate in the conference. It’s the belief that we need to do something different compared to how we have done it in the past, and the focus on the humanitarian aspect is an important component of it. It is about looking at the consequences and the risks. If you do that seriously, then the equation about the utility of nuclear weapons in our belief should change, and once the question about the utility of nuclear weapons and the security values of nuclear weapons has changed, then you discuss how best to do it.

Q: There are treaties to ban antipersonnel land mines and cluster bombs. Would you think that kind of legal framework banning nuclear weapons could be achieved?

A: It’s a different weapon, it’s a weapon in the eyes of some countries, nuclear weapon states and allies, has much more importance for security than land mines ever had. So, when you look at land mines, the humanitarian problem compared to the military value was relatively easy. The suffering from land mines is much greater than the value of land mines for the military. For nuclear weapons, it’s much more difficult to convince countries that rely on nuclear weapons on humanitarian grounds that they can give up nuclear weapons. The value that these countries attached to nuclear weapons is much higher. So, in that respect, you cannot compare.

The Austrian view is that we actually have no preference. We have tried over the years a number of initiatives, so we have no fixed view what the exact process should look like. We are willing and interested in supporting any process that brings progress, including a ban treaty. We don’t really think it’s important how we make progress, but we cannot stand still. If you don’t make progress, you take a step back. This is no longer possible. The Conference on Disarmament would have been working, and would have been in full swing negotiating a treaty banning fissile material and the CTBT would have been enforced. Nuclear weapon states need to respond more constructively. We need to find ways of avoiding standing still.

Q: Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida has already said that Japan would participate in the Vienna conference.

A: I think Japan has traditionally been one of the most active promoters of nuclear disarmament and has participated in the two previous conferences. We hope that governmental and civil society representatives from Japan, from Hiroshima and from Nagasaki, participate. The conference will be very open. It will be, of course, for governments, but we hope for very strong civil society participation. We hope for parliamentarians to participate and NGOs. The voices of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are unique because they are the only people who have experienced this tragedy firsthand, and play an extremely important role to educate the world that we need to eliminate nuclear weapons so that this never happens again. The hibakusha session in the Mexico conference was powerful. We want them to be heard in Vienna as well.

* * *

Alexander Kmentt, born in 1965, is a career diplomat of Austria. He has assumed key posts at such bodies as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization. He also was deputy permanent representative of Austria to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.