Keynote Report Hideo Tsuchiyama Chairman Organizing Committee of Nagasaki Global Citizens' Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons I declare that today we will hold"the Fourth Nagasaki Global Citizens'Meeting for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons" I thank you very much, both the people from NGOs both from overseas countries and Japan, and the citizens of Nagasaki participating in this meeting. As a representative of the Organizing Committee, I welcome all of you from the bottom of my heart. The international circumstances surrounding nuclear weapons is now about to reach a major turning point. With the advent of President Obama of the USA, the door to the elimination of nuclear weapons, which had been blocked, is now beginning to be opened, albeit little by little. The address of President Obama in Prague on 5th April last year showed a concrete suggestion, which aims for"a world without nuclear weapons�. After that, in July last year a major framework for the reduction of nuclear warheads and means for their transport was agreed upon by the leaders of the USA and Russia towards the conclusion of a new Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty which will replace the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). Even if there are complications before the new treaty is ratified, this means that the direction of the way between the USA and Russia is now shown. Furthermore, a resolution incorporating the intention of acting together towards "a world without nuclear weapons" was adopted by unanimous agreement in a meeting of the leaders of the United Nations Securities Council, which was held in September last year, on the suggestion of President Obama. In this way, it appears that the tide towards the elimination of nuclear weapons shows a good start at least in principle. However, when it is seen from the aspect of actual negotiation, the fact is that a number of issues that should be overcome will occur. For example, one of them is the problem of nuclear dependent policies of nuclear weapon free nations. President Obama has reiterated with emphasis that so long as nuclear weapons exist, he would maintain a strong and effective nuclear deterrent in order to guarantee defense of allied nations including Korea and Japan in his addresses both in Prague and Tokyo. On the other hand, the president has mentioned that he would reduce the role of nuclear weapons in the national securities strategies of the USA in order to put an end to the thought of cold wars, and will request other nations to follow suit. It is naturally necessary to make demands, not only on nations with nuclear weapon capability, but also on nuclear weapon free nations in order to put an end to the thought of cold wars. In that sense, Japan, which is an atom-bombed nation, has continued to be dependent on the nuclear deterrent of the USA under the operation of a so-called nuclear umbrella since 1965, and has remained to be for as long as twenty years since the end of the cold war in 1989. The major reason for this is said to be that the diplomacy under the administration of the Liberal Democratic Party, the previous government, continued to request the US government every time something happened in order not to reduce the effectiveness of the nuclear umbrella against the threat of North Korea and China. It is also reported that that point has become a pretext of the conservatives of the USA who are against the elimination of nuclear weapons, and has become a factor that hinders the realization of the conception of President Obama. We, anti-nuclear NGOs in Japan, have severely criticized such policy of the Japanese government, and have always demanded the government to grow out of the thought of cold wars, which means "like for like". We have suggested that as a solution, the creation of "the Northeast Asia nuclear weapon free zone"s the only road which is conducive to peaceful multi-national security. Fortunately, leading members of the new government, the Democratic Party, have supported "no first use of nuclear weapons", and the conception of the "Northeast Asia nuclear-weapon free zone"as its nuclear weapon policy. However, not all members of the party agree to this policy. We therefore would like to look for future complete agreement, and need to oversee this movement carefully. The second point is the problem concerning the Nuclear Weapons Convention. We understand that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (P5) have unanimously resolved to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the meeting of leaders of the Security Council. However, it is extremely questionable to have India, Pakistan and Israel participate only by strengthening NPT. India has continued to refuse to participate, criticizing the inequality of the treaty since the start of the NPT. It is difficult to find any grounds on which India might suddenly withdraw that strong objection. However, India has manifested its intention to always support the Nuclear Weapons Convention. It can be said that there has been no other time than the present that an international treaty which legally prohibits nuclear arms is considered to be required, as was recommended by the speech of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon as well as for the purpose of the Hans Blix Committee making nuclear arms illegal. If India participates in this treaty, Pakistan is expected to certainly participate as well. From the viewpoint of its domestic circumstances, some point out that Pakistan is a nation where nuclear weapons are highly likely to be transferred to a terrorist organization. It is therefore necessary to say that the state of the circumstances requires urgent measures to be taken in consideration of that point. A resolution of a model nuclear arms treaty has been submitted to the general assembly of the United Nations almost every year, but four nations out of the P5 have cast a vote of objection to this. The reason is said to be that they disliked the thought of losing their privileged position, and that they were also offended by the proposal of radical non-aligned nations. However, if it is necessary by any means to avoid the risk of terrorist organizations obtaining nuclear arms, I consider that now is the best time to introduce this treaty in addition to the NPT. As mentioned above, I expect that in the sub-committees that will meet tomorrow, detailed examination will be given to these two points and the directions where they should be will be clarified. Also, in sub-committee 3,'Succession and Creation of the Movement of the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons� is expected to be discussed. Here, I believe that the development of active discussions will take place by people, including not only the youth in the next generation, but also the victims of the post Bomb generation. Furthermore, in the overall conference, discussion will be made concerning what we should demand under the theme of "Requests for the NPT Review Conference"in the same conference which is expected to take "Global Zero� have already been provided, and I hope that contents, which are suitable as a transmission from the sites of the Atomic bombs, will be discussed in consideration of these proposals. Lastly, there is one thing that I would truly like to tell the leaders of the nations which already have nuclear weapons and those which wish to have them." think that probably you all know very well how strong the destructive power of the atomic bomb was through hearsay, records and films.""Isn't that the reason why you think that having nuclear weapons can be used to lead diplomacy in your own interests on the security front, or can be a kind of status to show off your own national power?"However, my own opinion is that you have not personally experienced the effects of the atomic bomb explosion. The fact is that numberless innocent citizens were obliterated instantly under that mushroom cloud, that people who did not die instantly died after writhing in agony, covered in blood or burned in fire, and that people who narrowly escaped from death had to suffer from radiation injury for the rest of their lives. Yes. I would like you to understand that you cannot be proud of having nuclear weapons at present or having an intention to have them in the future, and it means that you may become conspirators of a shameful offence against humanity. We strongly make demands from Nagasaki, which is a bombed site, in the name of global citizens that all of you, such leaders, should not be people who approve of the Obama conception only superficially, but that you should truly take immediate steps towards the realization of 'a world without nuclear weapons".