Nordiskt anförande i FN av civilsamhället

President. Distinguished delegates. 

Thank you for taking the time to listen to the civil society statements. I take the floor on behalf of 20 civil society organisations from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. We urge all state parties and observers to take our message into consideration. We will start by reminding everyone in this room that everything that happens here during this RevCom conference, will impact human lives. 

President. With the heightened risk, we cannot wait. The world knows only too well the dangers that nuclear weapons represent. This alone should be enough for this review conference to take concrete action to strengthen the NPT. As we are gathered here, a wave of geopolitical uncertainty is sweeping the world. The feeling of uncertainty will impact the NPT. Already there are many voices that have started public debates: should our countries have nuclear weapons? 

Lately, we have spent countless hours debunking arguments in support of Nordic nuclear weapons, and European nuclear umbrellas. The voices for a more intense nuclear Europe are gaining traction in the Nordic, which is a grave concern for our security. Distrust in security guarantees and lack of diplomatic relations create tension and insecurity among us. In such conditions, hate and polarity spreads. This corrupts our societies and creates the false illusion that nuclear weapons create security. In fact, it only makes our world more dangerous.

Moreover, the current debate surrounding European nuclear weapons reveals a recurring pattern of eurocentrism. As is well known, the majority of states worldwide supports the UN treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, reflecting a broad global consensus against nuclear armament. However, this fact is completely disregarded when a few European countries contemplate expanding or hosting nuclear weapons, thereby endangering global security. Such actions would also be in complete violation of the NPT. All European countries have legally binding commitments under the NPT not to receive the transfer of or accept control over nuclear weapons. Further nuclear proliferation in Europe would undermine the treaty at a time when its legitimacy and effectiveness are already under significant strain. 

The voices for European or Nordic nuclear weapons do NOT represent the majority of the European and Nordic population. On the contrary, it is a slippery slope towards nuclear proliferation. The intention of the NPT was, and still is, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon states are expected to disarm as soon as possible. 

The Nordic countries share a documented history of engagement of nuclear disarmament and disarmament policies. President, Over time, the nordic countrice,  have actively worked toward nuclear weapons abolition and non‑proliferation, reflecting a long-term regional commitment to reducing nuclear threats. Throughout the region, there have been recurring political and expert consultations on the possibility of establishing a Nordic nuclear‑weapon‑free zone, particularly during periods of heightened East‑West tensions. In addition, the Nordic states have engaged both individually and collectively with key international frameworks, such as the Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and broader disarmament dialogues, further reinforcing their commitment to global nuclear governance.

It is therefore with great concern that we now witness the governments of the Nordic countries now weakening that historical work and defending the nuclear sharing concept. An argument that was made was that the sharing of nuclear weapons in Europe was never prohibited by the NPT, and had a positive effect in preventing proliferation. Given the current discussions world wide, such arguments seem to be a tiny band-aid on a very large leak. 

President, it is our point of view that nuclear weapons sharing programmes go against the very principle and intention of this treaty. In the process of this review conference, we therefore urge the Nordic states and all the distinguished delegates to create a framework that seeks to reduce the reliance on the nuclear weapons sharing concept. 

At a time marked by an escalating nuclear threat and increasing reliance on nuclear weapons in national security strategies, it is of utmost importance that the Nordic countries strengthen their traditional policies of détente. Today, there are strong reasons for the Nordic countries to initiate a joint Nordic initiative and commitments for nuclear disarmament, rooted in the Nordic countries history.

The Nordic countries should therefore;

• Strengthen their nuclear-weapon-free positions within the Non-Proliferation Treaty by clearly articulating their national policies of not allowing nuclear weapons on their territories, in order to implement their commitments under Article II of the NPT.
• Promote the issue of a Nordic nuclear-weapon-free zone, in accordance with action 9 from the NPT action plan from 2010. It is  also recommended within the Stockholm Initiative, in which Finland, Norway, and Sweden participate, where one of their 22 points is a recommendation to establish more nuclear-weapon-free zones.

• Support the humanitarian consequences resolution. The Nordic countries should vote in favor of the annual UN General Assembly resolution highlighting the devastating humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and emphasizing that they must never be used again. Likewise, this support should also be shown to the ongoing scientific panel on the effects of nuclear war.
• Make joint humanitarian statements. The Nordic countries should deliver joint statements at NPT review conferences focusing on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and ensure that the 2010 final document is highlighted and strengthened.
• Strengthen the demand for negative security assurances. The Nordic countries should jointly demand commitments from nuclear-weapon states not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states that comply with their NPT obligations. This could pave the way for a process toward a standalone international agreement on negative security assurances.

Endorsed by: 

Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society

Nei Til Atomvåpen (No to nuclear weapons Norway)
Swedish Physicians against Nuclear Weapons

ICAN Finland

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Sweden

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Finland

Technology for Life (TEP), Finland

Women´s International League for Peace and Freedom, Finland

The Union of Conscientious Objectors, AKL, Finland

Campaign Against Militarism, Iceland

ICAN Norway

Danish Physicians against Nuclear Weapons

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Denmark 

Norwegian Peace Association

Ban Nuclear Weapons – ICAN in Denmark

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Norway

Norwegian Physicians against Nuclear Weapons

Norwegian Peace Council

Danish United Nations Association

Grandmothers for Peace, Norway