Final Draft

• Nina Eisenhardt
• Emily Freeman
• Ilse Wermink
• Barbara Streibl 
  
• Nina & Barbara
• Hannah Buchter
• Kai Hagen
• Giorgio Alba
• Marie Orset
• Natasha Barnes
• Welmoed Verhagen (with the help of her intern Franka van Schaik)
  

Click on the -Button or doubleclick on the paragraph you want to edit. Use Strikethrough for parts you want to replace. If some time has passed and no discussion has emerged, we will remove and change texts. Older versions of this page can be seen by clicking on the "Show Version" button.

#No are the quotes. They are by now provisional. Where they will be and what they will be is discussed HERE!

# I have to say that there are still too less quotes and I am still waiting for some! They will still be added inbetween.

Ambassador Cabactulan, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen,

In May 2009 most of us  gathered here at the United Nations for the third PrepCom for this year's NPT Review Conference *I do not thik that´s true. Only a few of the youth who are attending the RevCon did also attend the PrepCom in 2009*. After a unsuccessful NPT RevCon in 2005, last year gave us youth, and we're sure many others too, a feeling of hope for this year's RevCon. The atmosphere was radically different from before, not in the least part caused by the positive stand of the United States [or is that too political to say?]. We believe it is crucial that this positive and enthusiastic atmoshpere will be maintained at this RevCon. 

We expect to see last year's hope to be transformed into a positive outcome at this RevCon and a decent strengthening of the NPT itself. *This sentence is very concrete. I think it is better not to have concrete hopes or expectations in the beginning. In my feeling this is something we can bring up more in the end * On this, we have some good news to share: the people that can make this happen, are present here today. 

------ We shorted this because we don`t want to use our time for an introduction ;) make it short and come to the points.

During these weeks all of us here All day long  are discussing defense, security doctrines, missiles, deterrence, non-proliferation, sovereignty and more. The main reason We say that the reason we discuss them seems to be is security. But really we know understand that at At the heart of this security, which our governments work so hard to protect, is something even more important: life itself. We are all asking must ask ourselves: How can we best preserve and protect all life lives on this planet? What type of security do we need to strive for, in order to protect life, and to ensures our true security, the true fulfillment of the human rights our governments have committed themselves to? And how can that type of security be achieved?
*We “the young people” of the United Nations seek a safer and more secure world. Your debates in this forum fuel discussions on defense, deterrence, non-proliferation, sovereignty, missiles, and weapons of mass destruction. But we understand that at the heart of national security lies human security. Our governments work hard to protect the state, but in a world where states and their citizens are so connected to each other, we must ask: how can we best preserve and protect all lives on this planet?* The problem is that this beginning is kind of aggresive. We want to create a common ground and not to define the gap between us and the diplomats. Anyway we are not allowed to adress the diplomats directly ("Your debates"), this will be censored. I think it is better to say that the governments work hard to protect security than to say that they work hart to protect the state. I have inserted the parts of your beginning I would like to adopt in the original one. I added a more positive beginning to the speech, so that we don't start 'blaiming' them. I also tried to avoid adressing them directly. It also links up well with the next paragraph.

 Before we go into more detail, we would like to expand on what this is all about: life. Life Life is what is what is counting.is what matters. Our families and friends should be our motivation to abolish what a weapon that could kill them or destroy their lives.  [I believe we should include a sentence here, to make the sentences before and after it ink up better] We asked young people from around the world what they love in their lives and we often ask ourselves you to think what the beauty of life gives usto you. Today I have the pleasure to present you their answers. I would like to keep the first two changes you made in this paragraph, but I think we should have a scentence that explains that the quotations are the answers to our question. [I moved this paragraph here from further below. Now it is clearer, without having to use too much words, that these quotes are answers to our question.]

I love going to my football academy and scoring goals, I love my family and having dinner with them, and many more things - Ishaan Jha, 15 years from India 

 As human beings we have the ability to be creative, so let’s not use our ability to destroy the world. Suzy Elwakeel, 26 years from Sudan 

[I moved those two quotes] - we also moved quotes around and hope now they are fitting better and we are still wating for new once.

So what type of security do we need to ensure the ultimate aim: preserving life? This Itis a difficult question, but one thing is clear: security by (threathening with) nNuclear weapons isare not the answer. Nuclear wWeapons are immoral and since they are used to (threaten to) destroy life on a massive scale and without discrimination, they go against our human nature. The use of a nuclear weapon is an international crime [is it an international crime under international law? I don't think it already is, or is it?]: no human being has the right to kill another one [not even in self defense?]. No nation has the right to define other peoples as "evil" and not worthy to live. No government has the right to decide whether or not they have nuclear weapons. In holding nuclear weapons, governments  take the right for themselves to kill countless people. All governments have committed themselves in the UN charter “to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources". Nuclear weapons provide nothing of this. All they provide is death [not so true, they also provide 'security'. Could solve that by saying death or the threat of death and destruction]. [I think in this pragraph, we too much state what international law is, even though that is not always factually correct. Why don't we talk more like 'we belive this and that is wrong'? That we won't make factual errors, and we come across more strongly: today's youth believes this or that is wrong. It makes it slightly more emotional, but not too much, andthereby strenghtens our text here]

We believe we must all realize recognize that every human has the right to live.   

Life is what is counting. We understand that life is what matters. Our families and friends should be our motivation to abolish what a weapon that could destroy their lives. We asked young people from around the world what they love in their lives and we ask you to think what the beauty of life gives to you. Today I have the pleasure to present you their answers. I would like to keep the first two changes you made in this paragraph, but I think we should have a scentence that explains that the quotations are the answers to our question.

I love going to my football academy and scoring goals, I love my family and having dinner with them, and many more things - Ishaan Jha, 15 years from India 

Today, all the money, technology and human intelligence that is being devoted to these instruments of death, could instead be devoted to the preservation of life. With other, more viable alternatives we don't see any need for any country in this world to maintain nuclear arsenals, to stick to nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, to invest in arms and create toxic, radioactive waste, targets for terrorists and the threat of proliferation. So why don't we look more properly for those alternatives as ways of securing our lives?

A world without nuclear weapons does not equal this world minus nuclear weapons. Much more is needed to make this world a place in which everyone feels secure enough to live without nuclear weapons. Of course, we need to achieve that other world as soon as possible: the current situation is a larger security threat than that it provides security, even for the ones that have nuclear weapons. The key phrase for a safe world must be shared security: A security every human being can benefit from. *A safer world, and one without nuclear weapons must reflect the principles of “our common future” and “our shared security”, a security that benefits every human being.*

We have the capability to create a world with clean, safe, nontoxic, renewable energy and security based on understanding, respect and tolerance. Why don't we use it?  

Governments need to invest in human security [here we speak of human security, above about shared security. We need to explain why, or make it more the same in all sentences. Also applies further down this speech] by ensuring enough clean drinking water, sufficient food and access to necessary medical care. You will get what you pay for. So pay for the fulfillment of Millennium Development Goals and not for nuclear proliferation and war. Nuclear Weapons are not protecting us from potential enemies – they are creating them. Today , young people have friends all around the world. Modern communication and technology connects so many of us. [I find this paragraph way too 'easy' or shortsighted. Water, food and medical care are not going to prevent people from feeling unsure and feeling they have enemies. Cultural, religious and historical issues etc. lie at the basis of conflict, at least as much as problems with the issues in the MDGs.] we stressed it and added a few thoughts and reorganized this paragraph. About the MDGs: it is an important topic but the conference on sustainable development is taking place in the conference room next to us and maybe the NPT is not the right platform to bring it up.we left the beginning because here it is about investing money - and the idea about the source of conflicts we added later because you are right - it is not "just" about feeding hungry people (with chocolate)...

We are growing up in a globalized world, where people in other countries are no longer distant and strange enemies to us. We speak to them every day.  [see the end of the speech for my comments on this line]

I have had many encounters, and I met good friends and important people. There are still many other encounters waiting for me. Okawa Ikumi, 19 years from Japan

The concept of a war on European soil ever happening again, as it did in World War I and World War II, is a concept that the generation born after the end of the Cold War just doesn't compute. – Franka 26 years and WVelmoed, 27 years from the Netherlands

Our generation was born after the Cold war. We had nothing to do with the creation and proliferation of these weapons. They serve no purpose and go against internationally recognized principles: not to cause suffering, not to kill indiscriminately and not to threaten with war. The Cold war is over and humanity if facing new problems. These 21st century problems can't be solved by 20th century weapons. Nuclear weapons are now 65 years old. Don't you think it's time for compulsory retirement?  We are young and we have new ideas. We believe in the idea of shared security. Nuclear weapons must be replaced by trust [I like the idea of trust and confidence building very much, but it is also rather vague and long-term I feel we should encourage states more to do things now as well!]. [in this pragraph we have two strong and interesting, and somwhat funny 'quotes': the one on 21/20th century, and the one on 65 years old and retirement. I like both of them very much, and I think we can use them better by not putting them right behind each other. I suggest to spread them throughout the text of the speech. then we have two good quotes/jokes in different places :-) I think the second quote, on 65 years, should be moved, since the other one best fits in here] we tried our best to divide these two sentences.

[the whole line of reasoning in these paragraphs on human/shared security becomes a bit blurry: what exactly do we intend to say? The line in the speech is missing here] we dismissed the security topic in this paragraph.

"Save the earth, its our only source of chocolate!" It's a quote which can seem trivial, but it's true! We always speak about petrol which is running out, but we don't mind about what will be of us when many little things which seem insignificant will disappear... flowers, insects, chocolate... Let's think about it! Marie Orset, 20 years from France

The stability and security that you promise us with your nuclear weapons is simply a façade behind which the awful truth resides. We (the youth) and we (the people) do not want to live in a world where we are less than a half an hour from catastrophic humanitarian and environmental damage. [I like the we the youth and we the people: links up with the UN charter :-)]

We, the young generation, have the courage to speak and act on the truth about the terrible effects of nuclear weapons: about the unacceptable and incalculable consequences of the future use of nuclear weapons, and the huge waste of human and financial resources, the harm to human beings, plants, animals and habitats, their contribution to the problem of climate change; and their potential to cause irreversible damage to all of us and future generations. We ask diplomats, experts, members of armed forces, public officials and others to have the courage and to act on the truth.

U.S. President Obama has pointed to the desired goal at the horizon: a world free of nuclear weapons. Someone must make the next concrete step. We call all nuclear capable states to commit them to the goal of Global Zero. The time to start serious negotiations is now! We have to decrease the threat from nuclear weapons that are on hair-trigger alert now!. Concrete steps towards a framework of agreements banning nuclear-weapons nuclear weapons convention must be taken now, here, these weeks in May 2010, here in New York!. [on hair-trigger alert: we said we did not want to become too specific in our recommendations, and this part here is very very concrete. Why this one and not others? Or why not take it out and make it in line with the rest of the text?] [I believe we should askfor a framework of agreements. That is not too detailed, yet very clear ad a good thing to ask for, and it was in de UN Sec Gen's 5 point plan, and it is less controversial at this point in time than the NWC]. its changed. we like to raise the topic of an NWC beacuse it goes through all NGO presentations and this is our demand and we should have the courage to say so even if they don't like it. they need to learn to love it.*

Each year now since 2005 we have stood here in front of you, asking and pleading with you to be reasonable and to think about our future, and not to leave us the legacy of fear, threats and death. We have seen no real actions or courageous leadership. So today, once more, it is us who must have the courage to stand here demanding the beginning of real, honest and fruitful negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons free world! 

*Today, we ask once more for all states to begin real, honest and fruitful negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons free world.  We do not want our governments to be in constantly hostile postures. We want to learn from each other, trade with each other and grow up with each other in a world that is safe from the scourge of war and the effects of a nuclear winter. We want you to take us into account when you plan for our future.*

You We must remember too, that the decisions taken this month you will make this month *I prefer: "taken this month"*  [I do too] do not only have an impact on us. These decisions are OUR lives; our future. The future of your children, the future of our children and grandchildren, that is what is being decided now. But we have no control to decide if we will live in safety or fear. Now it is up to you to us here, to change hope into reality. take the decisions. *again, we are not allowed to adress the diplomats directly*

We call on everybody to face the truth and to act accordingly.

We thank you for your attention. And we and all future generations will thank you for abolishing nuclear weapons. We thank you for your attention. [ I changed the order, because I think people will start applauding after the thank you for your attention, and then the last sentence might not be heard because of the noise of the clapping. This way, the very good last line will be heard :-) ] *well - if they clapp, okay for the YS they will but normaly they just start when translation ends and the microphone is switched of and if the speaker goes quickly ahead with it, it will be fine. and I think this way it sounds better/funnier*

[I remember in one of the earlier drafts was a text about us youth connecting with people around the world, thourgh internet etc. Has it been taken out? I believe it was a VERY good part, because it shows something that's specific to us as youth: we are more connected to the rest of the world than other (older) people are. And since this is a youth speech, I believe strongly that it would be good to show our specialties. It shows that we take on OUR responsibility, namely befriending other people from other cultures, in order to/which can prevent wars and animosities (strange things/people are more scary than things/people we know). So we could then ask the delegates (though not directly) to also take up THEIR responsibility, as leaders of the countries of the world and parties to the treaty. This one sentence was in this final draft, and I believe it should be expanded: We are growing up in a globalized world, where people in other countries are no longer distant and strange enemies to us. We speak to them every day. This is what we're good at, what we can do, and we DO it. Ohters (delegates) have other capacities, and we call upon them to use them. Together we can create a more secure world, and that without nukes. :-) ]