natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I have been looking forward to this day: the coming together of representatives of states, the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and civil society to discuss the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.
I have been looking forward to this day: the coming together of representatives of states, the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and civil society to discuss the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.
This is an important moment.
This is an important moment.
For decades political leaders and experts have debated the challenges posed by the continued existence and further proliferation of nuclear weapons.
For decades political leaders and experts have debated the challenges posed by the continued existence and further proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This conference, however, takes a different starting point.
This conference, however, takes a different starting point.
It raises a very deep and serious question: If nuclear weapons actually were to be used, what would the consequences be?
It raises a very deep and serious question: If nuclear weapons actually were to be used, what would the consequences be?
Would we be able to handle the humanitarian catastrophe that would follow a detonation?
Would we be able to handle the humanitarian catastrophe that would follow a detonation?
Through several decades of Cold War, the fear of nuclear annihilation represented one of the most principal existential fears of mankind.
Through several decades of Cold War, the fear of nuclear annihilation represented one of the most principal existential fears of mankind.
In East and West alike, people dreaded that an intentional or accidental launch could trigger what very properly became known as MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction.
In East and West alike, people dreaded that an intentional or accidental launch could trigger what very properly became known as MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction.
This fear also gave rise to the concept of a balance of terror between the superpowers.
This fear also gave rise to the concept of a balance of terror between the superpowers.
The main protection against the use of nuclear weapons, that's how the argument went, was precisely this mutual recognition that the consequences of a nuclear attack would far outweigh any conceivable military benefit.
The main protection against the use of nuclear weapons, that's how the argument went, was precisely this mutual recognition that the consequences of a nuclear attack would far outweigh any conceivable military benefit.
Hence, there was less need to focus on humanitarian consequences.
Hence, there was less need to focus on humanitarian consequences.
In the balance of terror logic, we would either see no use at all, or we would all be subject to a nuclear Armageddon from which no relief was conceivable.
In the balance of terror logic, we would either see no use at all, or we would all be subject to a nuclear Armageddon from which no relief was conceivable.
When the Cold War subsided, so did much of this existential angst.
When the Cold War subsided, so did much of this existential angst.
A decade of nuclear disarmament followed: people, governments and non-governmental organisations turned their attention to other global concerns.
A decade of nuclear disarmament followed: people, governments and non-governmental organisations turned their attention to other global concerns.
But nuclear weapons did not cease to exist.
But nuclear weapons did not cease to exist.
While fewer in numbers, more states have nuclear weapons today than during the Cold War years.
While fewer in numbers, more states have nuclear weapons today than during the Cold War years.
Furthermore, there is real concern that also non-state, terrorist networks might get hold of one or a few such weapons.
Furthermore, there is real concern that also non-state, terrorist networks might get hold of one or a few such weapons.
In other words: While a full-scale nuclear exchange seems less likely, I believe that the risk that one or a few nuclear weapons would intentionally be used is higher today than it was a few decades ago.
In other words: While a full-scale nuclear exchange seems less likely, I believe that the risk that one or a few nuclear weapons would intentionally be used is higher today than it was a few decades ago.
Time is not on our side.
Time is not on our side.
The technology exists, on more hands, and we know that more states and non-state groups are contemplating acquiring real weapons.
The technology exists, on more hands, and we know that more states and non-state groups are contemplating acquiring real weapons.
On top of this, comes the risk of accidental detonation, for instance due to improper handling of nuclear weapons.
On top of this, comes the risk of accidental detonation, for instance due to improper handling of nuclear weapons.
Hence, non-proliferation and disarmament are just as important issues as ever before and must remain high on the collective political agenda of humankind.
Hence, non-proliferation and disarmament are just as important issues as ever before and must remain high on the collective political agenda of humankind.
This conference is not intended as a substitute for any of the established arenas, be they bilateral or multilateral.
This conference is not intended as a substitute for any of the established arenas, be they bilateral or multilateral.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is utterly important, but is also under serious pressure.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is utterly important, but is also under serious pressure.
North Korea’s recent provocations reminded us of that.
North Korea’s recent provocations reminded us of that.
I welcome the fact that the international community stood together in condemning those dangerous actions.
I welcome the fact that the international community stood together in condemning those dangerous actions.
It puts the humanitarian consequences of actual use of nuclear weapons at the centre.
It puts the humanitarian consequences of actual use of nuclear weapons at the centre.
More than 130 states, international organizations and key representatives of civil society have come together for this conference.
More than 130 states, international organizations and key representatives of civil society have come together for this conference.
That in itself is an indication of a broad engagement.
That in itself is an indication of a broad engagement.
It is an indication of our shared determination to examine more closely what nuclear weapons could do – if they were to be used – to human beings, to societies, and to the environment.
It is an indication of our shared determination to examine more closely what nuclear weapons could do – if they were to be used – to human beings, to societies, and to the environment.
Your presence shows your commitment to advancing our understanding of the challenges we are facing.
Your presence shows your commitment to advancing our understanding of the challenges we are facing.
– And I thank you for that.
– And I thank you for that.
A topic as serious as the consequences of a nuclear detonation should prompt a unison reaction of horror.
A topic as serious as the consequences of a nuclear detonation should prompt a unison reaction of horror.
But as we know: The issue of nuclear weapons is complex and often sensitive.
But as we know: The issue of nuclear weapons is complex and often sensitive.
It is a topic that brings with it assumptions of power rivalries, balancing acts, secrecy, and the postulate that this is an issue for the nuclear powers to deal with on their own.
It is a topic that brings with it assumptions of power rivalries, balancing acts, secrecy, and the postulate that this is an issue for the nuclear powers to deal with on their own.
Neither of this, however, can be used as excuses for not talking about – or even preparing for – the possible consequences of the use of such weapons.
Neither of this, however, can be used as excuses for not talking about – or even preparing for – the possible consequences of the use of such weapons.
I think that this is a legitimate question for anyone living on this planet to ask.
I think that this is a legitimate question for anyone living on this planet to ask.
Many of us believe that nuclear weapons represent and remain a distinct threat against life, health and social progress.
Many of us believe that nuclear weapons represent and remain a distinct threat against life, health and social progress.
But even for those of us who believe this is true, our understanding of the nuclear threat is neither very deep nor very detailed.
But even for those of us who believe this is true, our understanding of the nuclear threat is neither very deep nor very detailed.
That is why we need a facts-based and open discussion that will enhance our understanding.
That is why we need a facts-based and open discussion that will enhance our understanding.
– So we should ask:
– So we should ask:
What are the actual effects of nuclear weapons on human beings?
What are the actual effects of nuclear weapons on human beings?
Which would be the effects on the environment?
Which would be the effects on the environment?
What are the humanitarian, developmental and security challenges?
What are the humanitarian, developmental and security challenges?
There has – so far – been a lack of discussion of these questions in the international arena, in my view.
There has – so far – been a lack of discussion of these questions in the international arena, in my view.
States do, of course, have numerous opportunities to discuss nuclear weapons.
States do, of course, have numerous opportunities to discuss nuclear weapons.
But rarely have the humanitarian consequences of these weapons been the centrepiece of these talks.
But rarely have the humanitarian consequences of these weapons been the centrepiece of these talks.
We believe that there has, for some time, been a desire to take a closer look at this important issue.
We believe that there has, for some time, been a desire to take a closer look at this important issue.
At the last Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in May 2010, all member states of the NPT expressed their – and I quote – "deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons" (end quote).
At the last Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in May 2010, all member states of the NPT expressed their – and I quote – "deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons" (end quote).
Today’s conference is an opportunity for states and other stakeholders to elaborate on this concern.
Today’s conference is an opportunity for states and other stakeholders to elaborate on this concern.
It is an opportunity to establish a sound understanding of what is meant by the NPT Review Conferences reference to “catastrophic humanitarian consequences”.
It is an opportunity to establish a sound understanding of what is meant by the NPT Review Conferences reference to “catastrophic humanitarian consequences”.
Any detonation, intended or accidental, of a nuclear weapon would concern – and could affect – all members of the international community: It would have dire consequences for our physical security, our societies, our economies and our future.
Any detonation, intended or accidental, of a nuclear weapon would concern – and could affect – all members of the international community: It would have dire consequences for our physical security, our societies, our economies and our future.
We need to understand how we can meet these challenges and indeed whether we would be able at all to meet them.
We need to understand how we can meet these challenges and indeed whether we would be able at all to meet them.
All states and other stakeholders have therefore been invited to take part in this dialogue.
All states and other stakeholders have therefore been invited to take part in this dialogue.
Indeed, partnerships between states and international organisations and between states and NGOs have been critical for making this conference possible.
Indeed, partnerships between states and international organisations and between states and NGOs have been critical for making this conference possible.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and key UN organisations have already raised important questions about the effects of nuclear detonations.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and key UN organisations have already raised important questions about the effects of nuclear detonations.
Their leadership in this process builds on vast experience and in-depth understanding of what humanitarian response, preparedness and disaster relief really mean.
Their leadership in this process builds on vast experience and in-depth understanding of what humanitarian response, preparedness and disaster relief really mean.
I warmly welcome their presence today.
I warmly welcome their presence today.
The ICRC and the relevant UN organizations will share their knowledge about the impact on the ground and what the field-level response might actually look like.
The ICRC and the relevant UN organizations will share their knowledge about the impact on the ground and what the field-level response might actually look like.
Their concerns must be our concerns.
Their concerns must be our concerns.
The consequences of a nuclear detonation are relevant to practitioners in such diverse fields as health services, development, environment, finance, and emergency preparedness and response.
The consequences of a nuclear detonation are relevant to practitioners in such diverse fields as health services, development, environment, finance, and emergency preparedness and response.
For this conference we have chosen to focus the expert presentations and our discussions around three key issues:
For this conference we have chosen to focus the expert presentations and our discussions around three key issues:
The first is the immediate human impact of a nuclear weapon detonation.
The first is the immediate human impact of a nuclear weapon detonation.
Any meaningful discussion about preparedness must be based on a common understanding of the actual situation the world would be facing.
Any meaningful discussion about preparedness must be based on a common understanding of the actual situation the world would be facing.
Leading experts of nuclear physics, medicine and disaster response will discuss questions such as: What is a nuclear weapon detonation?
Leading experts of nuclear physics, medicine and disaster response will discuss questions such as: What is a nuclear weapon detonation?
What are the medical effects?
What are the medical effects?
And what lessons may be learnt from historical experience?
And what lessons may be learnt from historical experience?
The second key issue is the wider economic, developmental and environmental consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation.
The second key issue is the wider economic, developmental and environmental consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation.
These consequences are not always considered in current inter-state discourses about these weapons.
These consequences are not always considered in current inter-state discourses about these weapons.
However, in an increasingly interconnected world, they may prove to be broader and more significant than previously anticipated.
However, in an increasingly interconnected world, they may prove to be broader and more significant than previously anticipated.
The third and final key topic concerns the preparedness of states, international organisations, civil society and the general public.
The third and final key topic concerns the preparedness of states, international organisations, civil society and the general public.
How would we deal with the predictable humanitarian consequences that would follow from a nuclear weapon detonation?
How would we deal with the predictable humanitarian consequences that would follow from a nuclear weapon detonation?
A two-day conference cannot give us all the answers.
A two-day conference cannot give us all the answers.
But raising these questions and discussing them is important in itself.
But raising these questions and discussing them is important in itself.
It is a way of framing the discourse on nuclear weapons in a manner that properly reflects the danger that these weapons represent – to us all.
It is a way of framing the discourse on nuclear weapons in a manner that properly reflects the danger that these weapons represent – to us all.
The insights we gain can strengthen and inform our future debates about nuclear weapons.
The insights we gain can strengthen and inform our future debates about nuclear weapons.
I wish you a very successful conference.
I wish you a very successful conference.
Thank you so much for your attention.
Thank you so much for your attention.
Opening Statement at Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons
Åpningsinnlegg på Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons
Oslo, 15-16 April 2013
Oslo, 15.-16. april 2013
- Many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people continue to face discrimination and violence.
- Many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people continue to face discrimination and violence.
Simply for being who they are.
Simply for being who they are.
LGBT people are entitled to claim and enjoy their rights – just like anyone else.
LGBT people are entitled to claim and enjoy their rights – just like anyone else.
It is our duty, as political and societal leaders, to take every possible step to assist civil society in this struggle, said Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide at the opening of the conference.
It is our duty, as political and societal leaders, to take every possible step to assist civil society in this struggle, sa utenriksminister Espen Barth Eide under åpningen av konferansen.
Ladies and gentlemen – and all those in between,
Ladies and gentlemen – and all those in between,
On behalf of South Africa and Norway, I am delighted to welcome you all to this important international conference on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity.
On behalf of South Africa and Norway, I am delighted to welcome you all to this important international conference on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity.
May it pave the way for long-awaited action!
May it pave the way for long-awaited action!
I would also like to commend South Africa in particular for its dedicated leadership in protecting sexual minorities from discrimination and violence.
I would also like to commend South Africa in particular for its dedicated leadership in protecting sexual minorities from discrimination and violence.
Norway is proud to be part of the international coalition.
Norway is proud to be part of the international coalition.
It is a coalition of the willing, which is drawing support from more and more countries in all regions of the world.
It is a coalition of the willing, which is drawing support from more and more countries in all regions of the world.
Human rights are for all.
Human rights are for all.
This is a clear and basic message – and it has been said before.
This is a clear and basic message – and it has been said before.
But I will continue to repeat it until it becomes a reality.
But I will continue to repeat it until it becomes a reality.
In fact this is really why we are gathered here today.
In fact this is really why we are gathered here today.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
That means our human rights are inherent birth rights.
That means our human rights are inherent birth rights.
They apply to all persons regardless of race or nationality, age or gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.
They apply to all persons regardless of race or nationality, age or gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.
For some people this promise remains nothing more than a promise.
For some people this promise remains nothing more than a promise.
We have to make sure that this promise – of basic human rights for all – is fulfilled.
We have to make sure that this promise – of basic human rights for all – is fulfilled.
Many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people continue to face discrimination and violence.
Many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people continue to face discrimination and violence.
In Cameroon, for instance, 28 people have been prosecuted for same-sex conduct only since 2010, according to Human Rights Watch.
In Cameroon, for instance, 28 people have been prosecuted for same-sex conduct only since 2010, according to Human Rights Watch.
Most cases are marked by grave human rights violations, including torture, forced confessions, denial of access to legal counsel and discriminatory treatment by law enforcement officers and judicial officials.
Most cases are marked by grave human rights violations, including torture, forced confessions, denial of access to legal counsel and discriminatory treatment by law enforcement officers and judicial officials.
Recent years have seen the proliferation of laws prohibiting so-called “homosexual propaganda” – especially in countries in Central and Eastern Europe and in Russia.
Recent years have seen the proliferation of laws prohibiting so-called “homosexual propaganda” – especially in countries in Central and Eastern Europe and in Russia.
Such legislative measures clearly restrict freedom of expression, association and assembly, and violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Such legislative measures clearly restrict freedom of expression, association and assembly, and violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Similarly, LGBT people in Uganda continue to live under the threat of the infamous proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which will deny them their rights and broaden the criminalisation of their very existence if it is adopted and enforced.
Similarly, LGBT people in Uganda continue to live under the threat of the infamous proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which will deny them their rights and broaden the criminalisation of their very existence if it is adopted and enforced.
These were just a few examples.
These were just a few examples.
There are many more.
There are many more.
My point is this: sexual minorities often face two options: either to claim their rights and face repression and mistreatment, or to hide their identity and live a life of fear and untapped potential.
My point is this: sexual minorities often face two options: either to claim their rights and face repression and mistreatment, or to hide their identity and live a life of fear and untapped potential.
Such a reality is unacceptable.
Such a reality is unacceptable.
We often hear that sexual diversity is incompatible with certain cultures or religions.
We often hear that sexual diversity is incompatible with certain cultures or religions.
It is true that religious beliefs and traditional and cultural values are essential elements of every society.
It is true that religious beliefs and traditional and cultural values are essential elements of every society.
They are undeniably part of our identity, our history and our present time.
They are undeniably part of our identity, our history and our present time.
LGBT people are part of all of our societies.
LGBT people are part of all of our societies.
They are our family members, our friends, our work colleagues.
They are our family members, our friends, our work colleagues.
But collective beliefs and ideas can never justify the infringement of individual rights and freedoms.
But collective beliefs and ideas can never justify the infringement of individual rights and freedoms.
The individual’s right to freedom of religion does not imply a right to discriminate against others.
The individual’s right to freedom of religion does not imply a right to discriminate against others.