Der Vatikan hat mehr Tempo bei der Umsetzung des Atomwaffensperrvertrags angemahnt.
Erzbischof Francis Chullikat sagte vergangene Woche am UN-Sitz in New York, wenn es
weiter so „zaghaft“ und in einer derart „unannehmbar langsamen“ Weise voranginge,
würde die Glaubwürdigkeit des Vertrags selber in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Der Vatikandiplomat
warf den Atommächten vor, mit zweierlei Maß zu messen. Einerseits täten sie alles,
um die Verbreitung von Atomwaffen an dritte Staaten zu verhindern. Ihr eigenes nukleares
Potential würde aber nicht angetastet, sondern sei angeblich für deren Sicherheit
notwendig. Chullikat bekräftigte die Forderung, den Nahen Osten zur atomwaffenfreie
Zone zu deklarieren. Eine solches Moratorium war 2010 verabschiedet worden. (rv
04.05.2014 mc)
Radio Vatikan dokumentiert hier die Rede des Vatikandiplomaten
im eglischen Original:
Intervention of H.E. Archbishop Francis Chullikatt Apostolic
Nuncio, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN (30. April 20142014, UN Headquarters,
New York) (30. April 2014
Mr. Chairman,
My delegation congratulates
you on your election to chair this final preparatory meeting of the 2015 NPT Review
Conference. I assure you of our full cooperation. Each review cycle of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty becomes increasingly important because the longer the delay in fulfilling the
treaty’s aims, the greater the risk that the fragile state of international security
will be breached by a cataclysmic tragedy involving the use of nuclear weapons. It
is now 44 years since the NPT entered into force and a quarter of a century since
the end of the Cold War. The continued existence of some 17,000 nuclear weapons, along
with modernization programs that appear to assume that nuclear weapons will continue
to be part of military arsenals well into the second half of the 21st century, undermine
the NPT. Without robust progress toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, the day
may not be far off when the treaty is regarded as a relic of an earlier age. A
vibrant NPT is essential to attaining the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world. If
one of the treaty’s central obligations – negotiations toward the elimination of nuclear
weapons – continues to be implemented so timidly and at such an unacceptably slow
pace, confidence in the viability of the non-proliferation regime could gradually
weaken and the risk of further proliferation would increase. The principal nuclear-weapon
states take what would seem to be an unbalanced approach to the treaty: while demonstrating
a strong interest in curtailing proliferation, their commitment to divesting themselves
of these instruments of hegemonic power lacks the same urgency. The nuclear-weapons
states argue that they need those weapons for their security, while giving short shrift
to the views of experts in diverse fields of human activity, such as science, the
military, law, and morality, that nuclear weapons are the epitome of insecurity. Mr.
Chairman, The military doctrine of nuclear deterrence is regarded by a great number
of countries as a prime obstacle to meaningful progress on nuclear disarmament. It
exists as an elemental part of security force structures that hinder the development
of our globalized and interdependent world. Moreover, it is used to justify the modernization
of existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons, thus obstructing genuine nuclear disarmament. The
many states now engaged in a series of diplomatic meetings to discuss the “catastrophic
humanitarian consequences” of the use of nuclear weapons recognize the danger of the
frustratingly slow progress toward a nuclear-weapons-free world. These meetings, begun
in Oslo last year, and continued this year in Nayrit, with a third meeting planned
for Vienna, are spelling out in excruciating detail the horrors that would befall
humanity in the event of the accidental or deliberate use of nuclear weapons. The
logical course of action is clear: urgent and expedited progress leading to a global
legal ban on nuclear weapons to accompany the current global bans on other weapons
of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological weapons. However, diplomatic
meetings by themselves cannot start a process to produce a ban. We need a genuine
political process that can help achieve this end. The unprecedented High-Level Meeting
on Nuclear Disarmament, convened at the UN in September 2013, attempted to generate
that political momentum. Accordingly, my Delegation hopes that the major states will
take more substantial and resolute action to eliminate the scourge of these morally
unacceptable nuclear weapons that could indiscriminately annihilate non-combatants
and combatants alike in times of war as well as in times of peace. In light of
the above, clearly it would be better to have the nuclear-weapon states working with
the non-nuclear states to prepare a common path to develop a legally binding instrument
banning the possession of nuclear weapons. The Oslo-Nayrit-Vienna process demonstrates
that pressure is mounting to undertake the preparatory work for a ban. Governments
that recognize the urgency for such action may be tempted to try to achieve it without
the participation of the major nuclear states, and outside of the framework of existing
mechanisms and institutions such as bilateral strategic weapons negotiations and the
Conference on Disarmament, where the efforts of the nuclear weapon states to date
have been so modest. In my Delegation’s view, Governments should not have to make
such a choice. A good faith commitment to the NPT should assure and even enhance the
cooperation of all its parties, thereby moving the world closer to the elimination
of nuclear weapons in a unified manner. The major states that truly value the NPT
should ensure that the negotiating process actually produces comprehensive nuclear
disarmament at a greatly accelerated pace. For many years, the Holy See has called
for the abolition of nuclear weapons in order that the world may be freed from the
potential specter of mass destruction. Today, we renew that moral call to inspire
and animate constructive work to preserve our planet and all of humanity. It should
not be the case that the nuclear-weapons states continue to spend more than $100 billion
per year to maintain their nuclear weapons, while this precious financial resource
is so desperately needed for economic and social development, including the achievement
of the Millennium Development Goals, to meet the needs of the world’s poorest. Indeed,
the question of peace and security as a prerequisite for sustainable development becomes
moot in the face of the threats posed to humankind by existing nuclear arsenal. At
the 2010 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, my Delegation stated that
the world has arrived at an opportune moment to begin addressing in a systematic way
the legal, political and technical requisites for a nuclear-weapons-free world. It
is therefore our hope that preparatory work will begin as soon as possible on a comprehensive
agreement leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons. This effort need in no way
obstruct the steps and building blocks presently envisioned to support the objective
of a nuclear-weapons-free world, steps such as further reductions in arsenals of weapons,
entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and the Fissile Material
Cut-off Treaty.
In this regard, it is vital that the conference on the establishment
of a zone in the Middle East free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass
destruction, which all parties at the 2010 Review Conference agreed to hold, finally
be convened. Here, not only is the credibility of the NPT at risk, but the peace process
and the security of the region do require the assurance of all parties that the Middle
East will not become the site of a nuclear arms race.
Despite setbacks, nuclear
disarmament is by no means a lost cause. There is a gradual awakening of conscience
taking place in the world, as the Oslo-Nayrit-Vienna process illustrates. Driven forward
by science, technology, communications, transport and industry, and a new awareness
of the unity and interdependence of the human family, the pace of humanity’s global
integration is gathering speed. Nuclear weapons -- the antithesis of humankind’s yearning
for peace -- should have no place in a world community determined to achieve mutual
security on a global scale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.