| | | |
 Uploading ....How to use this page: Please add your comments and proposals directly in the text. Use the same colour for all your changes and add your name in your colour to this list of contributors: - Nina Eisenhardt
- Emily Freeman
- Ilse Wermink
- Barbara Streibl
- Matteo Pätzold
- Giorgio Alba
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!
|
Ambassador Cabactulan, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, All day long we are(have been?it is just the end of the first week, discussion will continue!!) discussing defense, security doctrines, missiles, deterrence, non-proliferation, sovereignty and more. We can all agree that these are not 'beautiful' or pleasant topics. What do we discuss them for? It is all about Something very beautiful: life. Life is at the heart of what we call national security, which governments work so hard to protect. We are always asking: How can we preserve and protect the life on this planet? What ensures our true security? Is it the chance to fight back once we have already been harmed? Or is it the true fulfillment of the human rights our Governments have committed themselves to? In my opinion this beginning is too simplified. It does not show that we understand that abolition is a complicated process. (You can´t say to the nuclear weapon states don´t discuss just abolish.) Of cause I agree that these political discussions miss the important point, that nuclear weapons are incompatible to human rights and life itself, but yet we know that these topics (or at least parts of them) have to be discussed as part of the abolition process. But they have to be discussed in a real effort to achieve disarmament and should not be used as an excuse for not abolishing nuclear weapons.
I don´t think our first and main argument should be: "It is all about Something very beautiful: life.", because we know much more about the problems and facts of abolishion. We made ourselfes experts and our speech should show that. We should show that we understand that abolition is a difficult process that needs discussions but point out that nuclear abolition itself must not be debated (Because “No human being has the right to kill another one...”).
I am not feeling as an expert on nuclear weapon first. First I am more a human being. We not saying getting rid of nuclear weapons is easy. We are questioning what they are existing for - to kill people. But this is not the aim of any nation (government+people) to kill as many people as possible but this is what nukes are doing. So the reason what we are really there for is to creat security - national and international which both means personaly. And we are defenitly not saying that we do not have to discuss about defense and missiles - but we have to think about the goal they have: protecting humanity. and than we can ask the question if we discuss them in the right way. I like the style of the introduction, an introduction is not the place where complicated arguments have to be discussed but where an essential statement / point of view has to be evident. This is the place where simplifications have to be made to reach the listeners - in contrast to the following parts of the speech.
We are not saying explicit that getting rid of nuclear weapons is easy. But I feel like the beginning implicates it. So if it is not meant to do so, we should change something because otherwise we could be misunderstood . I think I am especially bothered by the sentence “What do we discuss them for?”. Because for me this sounds like we are saying that we do not have to discuss about defense and missiles and so on. Furthermore it is irrelevant in my opinion whether a topic is pleasant or beautiful. I would like to leave out this sentence, because nobody, neither the diplomats nor the NGOs, is attending the RevCon to discuss pleasant topics. I am not sure whether I understood your comment correctly so please correct me if I understood anything wrong. You say that the primary function of nuclear weapons is to kill people, but the real cause why states possess (or want to possess) nuclear weapons is to create security or in other words to protect (their) people. Therefor you have to ask how to achieve real security if you want to abolish nuclear weapons. Is this what you want to say? If so I agree with you and l like this argument, because it shows some kind of understanding for nuclear weapon states (it is not like: “Nuclear weapon states are evil!” And that´s it, because there is always an other aspect), the only thing is that I can not really find this in the first paragraph of the speech. So if it is ok for you I will think of a beginning in which this is expressed more clearly in the following days. I would like to add to this discussion: I actually think it's best to keep things simple. Our perspective and questions are from Youth, not from Nuclear experts or Internaitonal Lawyers or Politicians. My idea of a good youthspeech is one which will present the situation in a simple and obvious way. This debate often happens: 'Idealist or realistic?' and I think the best for us here is Idealistic: they are not asking us to solve the problem; they are letting us give our point of view. I completely agree that we shouldn't be showing ourselves as completely ignorant of the complex issues of disarmament, but I also don't think it's necessary to appear 'expert'. Sometimes when you are so involved in these complex issues it is easy to forget the big picture and our job is to remind them of this: We, young people, will inherit a death machine which is not of our invention. This can be stopped, now (which means the process can start now, even if disarmament will not happen immediately). I don't think the phrase 'what do we discuss them for?' sounds like we think discussion is unimportant (would it help if we said "Why are we discussing them?"?). The answer 'life' shows that the discussion is very important. I think talking about the beauty of life and the need for fast action shows the strength of our feelings and the importantness of the issue to us. Serious and complex language is for lawyers, we are the campaigners!
It's not about governments deciding whether or not they have(or keep? Have is better, cause it's not just keeping but developing building etc. agreed!) nuclear weapons or not. It is a crime to take the right to threat and kill people (I don't quite undestand this sentence than we have to change it. The sence should be that "No human being has the right to kill another one. and No nation has the right to define other peoples as "evil" and not worthy to live. and This is what you do by holding nukes. You take the right for yourself to kill thousands of people. The use of a nuclear weapon is worse than genocide because it doesn't single out only one kind of people: it doesn't care who it kills. (I do not quite agree with this sentence and I think we should not say so, because it could be easily misunderstood. This contradicts what we say in the following, because if you say every human life counts equal, it does not matter whether only one kind of people or different kind of people are killed, it is wrong in any case and we should not make a difference. I see what you mean and I agree. I was just trying to show that the use of a nuclear weapon puts that state so far in the wrong, it is one of the worst things they can do, but I don't know how else to put it. ) Everyone suffers (and an international crime is committed). In a way it is "arogant" to think you have the right to own a nuclear weapon - or any other weapon - and to enact (??)decide about other peoples right to life. THinking is going into the direction that every human life counts equal" (I think you should use this between the " marks, it's great!) (I don´t understand the meaning of this sentence. “Thinking is going into the direction” sounds like it is a question of interpretation whether every human life counts equal. But in my opinion it is not a question of interpretation but the fundament of all human rights.) It depends if you're talking about ideals or reality again! In theory/Ideally all human lives are equal and Human Rights try to enforce this, but in practice, and in the past especially, people have considered others' lives less important than their own. Maybe we could say "Now, more than ever before, we understand that every human life counts as equal"
//for this paragraph I already have another version because it became very confusing, it will be published with the second draft. . It is the responsibility of a government to protect its citizens and to provide adequate and worthwhile living conditions. Nuclear weapons provide nothing of this. All they provide is death.
Except for the sentences I have made a comment on this paragraph is very good! I think this argument is really, really important and should be emphasized. Life is beautiful. Maybe we should keep it. (In my ear this sentence sounds to melodramatic. - I thought about using it as a quote) (I like that sentence very much - maybe put it to the very end of the speech? Give the speech a rather 'emotional' frame, but argue rational in between - just my two cents) 1##As human beings we have the ability to be creative, so let’s not use our ability to destroy the world. Suzy Elwakeel, xx years from Sudan 2## 3## little child My generation was born after the cold war. We had nothing to do with the creation and previous proliferation of these weapons. They serve no purpose [we can identify with] (they do serve purposes - retain/expand national power, 'deterrence',...) and go against internationally recognized principles: not to cause suffering, not to kill indiscriminately and not to threaten war. Even after the cold war, we still have problems in the world today, but 21st century problems can't be solved by 20th century weapons (This sentence is great!). Nuclear weapons are now 65 years old. Don't you think it's time for compulsory retirement?
This part is very good and important. All of what is said in this paragraph makes the enormous sum spend on nuclear weapons even more absurd and cruel. I think we should go more into detail and focus more on this part. Maybe we could work out more precisely what problems we have today and why they can´t be solved with nuclear weapons. so please write a few more sentences
On today's stage of international politics, which is being connected and kept alive through hundreds and thousands of particular interests, nuclear weapons do not provide security but stand a unpredictable risk factor.
4## 5##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 xx years and Velmoed, xx years from the Netherlands Today the richer countries in the Global North(?)northern hemisphere (I don't know. but we cannot say western countries. it is also Russia and China of P5 and others, it is also something that must change, that we don't use the East and the West like in the Cold War but North and South because this is how the world is split up today (that's fine! 'Global North' is the phrase often used now) should be using their resources to support the poorer ones. We cannot keep wasting our energy and money on nuclear weapons. The huge sum of money that is used for nuclear weapons should and must go to human welfare. We have to open our minds to a global way of thinking. We are also strained to do so (to do what? - think global?) in economy and we have to do make the next step: understand our earth not only as a global marketplace where everything and everywhere is just another financial opportunity but as a community of human beings all of whom just want to live. The key phrase is shared security: A security every human being can benefit from. Governments need to invest in true security by ensuring enough clean drinking water, sufficient food portions and access to necessary health. You will get what you pay for. So pay for the fulfillment of Millenium Development Goals and not for creation of an unstable future (I like this addition a lot but I also think we should be careful to keep coming back to the issue of nuclear weapons, and show how it is all linked!).
I like this argument very much, because rich countries spending money on nuclear weapons instead of supporting poorer countries is totally irresponsible and egoistic. Furthermore it is contra-productive in security questions. Therefore I like the sentence “ Governments need to invest in true security...”.
Where is the enemy we need to secure our countries (or ourselves?) against with nuclear weapons? In today’s world young people have friends all around the world. Modern communication and technology connects so many of us. This is a unique change which has helped bring down borders. People in other countries are no longer distant and strange enemies to us. We speak to them every day.
(I like this paragraph but maybe it is to eurocentric. Some youth in other countries, for example Japan or South Korea and so on, might not agree with the first sentence of this paragraph. But the rest of the paragraph is very true and important in my eyes. Not only in these countries... also in other regions of the world there are still the picture of an enemy. But in general it is changing. and when it is changing than through communication so you have this pictures where people don`t have the possibility to have e.g. free access to internet. This is a wanted situation. but now we have the chance to change it.
You are right this is also the case in other countries, these countries were just examples. So as you agree that there are still countries or regions in which people still have the iconcept of an enemy against whom they have to protect themselves by possessing nuclear weapons I think we should leave the first sentence out. At least it is an international youth speech not an european youth speech. ) 6##Dear brothers and sisters, we are living in a strange world, some people are suffering from hunger while others invest in nuclear weapons. Please think of all of us as human beings, and give the priority for surviving instead of killing other people. With big love, Abdelgasim Elgir. Xx years from Sudan 7## In December Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (But we still do not have peace and we still have nuclear weapons) We demand that he now earns his prize and keeps his promises and takes action on disarmement. Obama did took the first step and announced his willingness to move towards a nuclear weapon free world and others followed. But we need more than words, announcements and promises, we need actions. We call on all other nuclear capable states to join this road towards Global Zero. The goal must be a binding, commitment which will be followed and enforced. And the time to achieve it is now! We have to decrease the permanent world-shattering threat from nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert now. Concrete steps towards a nuclear weapons convention must be taken now! We demand that serious negotiations start now! (I think it might be too early to have such strong demands in this paragraph. What do you think about switching this with the last paragraph? I like them both but at the moment they're a bit disjointed) maybe even put them together.....
8## 9## 10## We, the young generation, have the courage to speak and act on the truth. The truth about the terrible effects of nuclear weapons over the last 65 years, the huge waste of human and financial resources from their presence on this planet, the truth about the unacceptable and incalculable consequences of the future use of nuclear weapons. The truth that adults, governments, 'experts', part of the public opinion ignore, but they(you? / those people) are deceiving themselves(yourselves). Each year now since (2006!?) we have stood here (before 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 with the courage to demanding the beginning of real, honest and fruitful negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons free world! We call on everybody to face the truth.
We call on all UN Member States to truly uphold Article 26 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".
We call on the governments to stop lying to themselves and to start negotiations for Global Zero Now. We thank you for your attention. And we and all future generations will thank you for abolishing nuclear weapons.(Love this ending!) (Me to!)
|
|
|
| | | |
|
