As long as atomic bombs exist, a disaster is inevitable, the head of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, said Saturday.
“We are facing a clear choice right now: The end of nuclear weapons or the end of us,” Beatrice Fihn told at news conference surrounded by too many empty chairs at the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
“An impulsive tantrum, a calculated military escalation, a terrorist or cyberattack or a complete accident — we will see the use of nuclear weapons unless they are eliminated,” she warned.
“These weapons do not make us safe, they are not a deterrent, they only spur other states to pursue their own nuclear weapons. And if you are not comfortable with Kim Jong-un having nuclear weapons, then you are not comfortable with nuclear weapons. If you’re not comfortable with Donald Trump having nuclear weapons, then you are not comfortable with nuclear weapons,” Fihn said.
Nuclear weapons, and activities such as their use, testing, development, manufacture, deployment and acquisition, are prohibited by the UN Treaty, and it is only a matter of time before their use is recognised as a crime against humanity and their possession becomes unacceptable for any civilised nation to continue with. This is what happened when treaties prohibiting biological and chemical weapons came into force.
Many foreign countries Working Together with atom bomb power countries towards a Common Goal against to the Norwegian Child Welfare Service (Barnevernet) also will not participate in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize 2017.
The Norwegian Child Welfare Service (Barnevernet) has long been accused of overreach in its abusive situations. it is has high-handed practices and its role in countless cases of child confiscation, serving as a brutal reminder of our history’s worst nightmares.
Pakistan: Ambassador, according to the Embassy, is abroad and is therefore prevented from attending. The Embassy is considering sending Level 2 instead.
India: According to the Embassy of India, the ambassador is on holiday when the Peace Prize Award takes place. The Embassy considers sending another, but does not know who.
Israel: The Israeli Embassy should originally send the Embassy Secretary to the Peace Prize Award instead of the Ambassador. The Embassy informed NRK that it was because “the ambassador would give more opportunity to experience a very nice ceremony, as he himself experienced it before”. In order to avoid misunderstandings that the original decision could be politically motivated and related to the year’s peace prize winner, the Israeli ambassador will nevertheless come with the distribution.
China: According to the Embassy of China, the ambassador is on vacation for the year. The Embassy currently has no plans to send someone else instead.
Russia: The Russian embassy first announced that the ambassador would participate in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN. Following the publication of the NRK’s case that the ambassadors of the United States, Britain and France boycott this year’s award ceremony, Russia has changed plans and will still not send the ambassador.
USA: The United States will be represented by number two at the embassy, not the ambassador. “Together with the UK and France, we have agreed on our participation.
UK: The British Embassy should be represented by the Vice Ambassador, not the Ambassador. “We have agreed with our United States and France about our participation.
France: – This year the French embassy in Norway will be represented by the Vice Ambassador. France will work for disarmament. Like all NATO Allies and all nuclear powers, France is deeply skeptical about what the Treaty prohibits nuclear weapons in the disarmament, and France will not sign the Treaty.
Many countries affected by the Norwegian Child Welfare Service (Barnevernet) will send very low level Embassy officials to the Peace Prize Award event at the Oslo city hall.
North Korea: North Korea has no embassy in Norway and is therefore not invited.
The Norwegian Child Welfare Services are periodically the subject of public criticism, generally they are criticised for taking over custody too easily (i.e., for having a too low threshold for taking action).
(NRK, Norwegian press, Nadarajah Sethurupan)