核兵器廃絶キャンペーン（ICAN）活動家セツコ・サーロウさんの記念講演スピーチ。
（以下スピーチ日本語訳全文）
皆さま、この賞をベアトリスとともに、ＩＣＡＮ運動にかかわる類いまれなる全ての人たちを代表して受け取ることは、大変な光栄です。皆さん一人一人が、核兵器の時代を終わらせることは可能であるし、私たちはそれを成し遂げるのだという大いなる希望を与えてくれます。
私は、広島と長崎の原爆投下から生き延びた被爆者の一人としてお話をします。私たち被爆者は、７０年以上にわたり、核兵器の完全廃絶のために努力をしてきました。私たちは、世界中でこの恐ろしい兵器の生産と実験のために被害を受けてきた人々と連帯しています。長く忘れられてきた、ムルロア、エッケル、セミパラチンスク、マラリンガ、ビキニなどの人々と。その土地と海を放射線により汚染され、その体を実験に供され、その文化を永遠に混乱させられた人々と。
私たちは、被害者であることに甘んじていられません。私たちは、世界が大爆発して終わることも、緩慢に毒に侵されていくことも受け入れません。私たちは、大国と呼ばれる国々が私たちを核の夕暮れからさらに核の深夜へと無謀にも導いていこうとする中で、恐れの中でただ無為に座していることを拒みます。私たちは立ち上がったのです。私たちは、私たちが生きる物語を語り始めました。核兵器と人類は共存できない、と。
今日、私は皆さんに、この会場において、広島と長崎で非業の死を遂げた全ての人々の存在を感じていただきたいと思います。皆さんに、私たちの上に、そして私たちのまわりに、２５万人の魂の大きな固まりを感じ取っていただきたいと思います。その一人ひとりには名前がありました。一人ひとりが、誰かに愛されていました。彼らの死を無駄にしてはなりません。
米国が最初の核兵器を私の暮らす広島の街に落としたとき、私は１３歳でした。私はその朝のことを覚えています。８時１５分、私は目をくらます青白い閃光（せんこう）を見ました。私は、宙に浮く感じがしたのを覚えています。静寂と暗闇の中で意識が戻ったとき、私は、自分が壊れた建物の下で身動きがとれなくなっていることに気がつきました。私は死に直面していることがわかりました。私の同級生たちが「お母さん、助けて。神様、助けてください」と、かすれる声で叫んでいるのが聞こえ始めました。
そのとき突然、私の左肩を触る手があることに気がつきました。その人は「あきらめるな！ （がれきを）押し続けろ！ 蹴り続けろ！ あなたを助けてあげるから。あの隙間から光が入ってくるのが見えるだろう？ そこに向かって、なるべく早く、はって行きなさい」と言うのです。私がそこからはい出てみると、崩壊した建物は燃えていました。その建物の中にいた私の同級生のほとんどは、生きたまま焼き殺されていきました。私の周囲全体にはひどい、想像を超えた廃虚がありました。
幽霊のような姿の人たちが、足を引きずりながら行列をなして歩いていきました。恐ろしいまでに傷ついた人々は、血を流し、やけどを負い、黒こげになり、膨れあがっていました。体の一部を失った人たち。肉や皮が体から垂れ下がっている人たち。飛び出た眼球を手に持っている人たち。おなかが裂けて開き、腸が飛び出て垂れ下がっている人たち。人体の焼ける悪臭が、そこら中に蔓延（まんえん）していました。
このように、一発の爆弾で私が愛した街は完全に破壊されました。住民のほとんどは一般市民でしたが、彼らは燃えて灰と化し、蒸発し、黒こげの炭となりました。その中には、私の家族や、３５１人の同級生もいました。その後、数週間、数カ月、数年にわたり、何千人もの人たちが、放射線の遅発的な影響によって、次々と不可解な形で亡くなっていきました。今日なお、放射線は被爆者たちの命を奪っています。
広島について思い出すとき、私の頭に最初に浮かぶのは４歳のおい、英治です。彼の小さな体は、何者か判別もできない溶けた肉の塊に変わってしまいました。彼はかすれた声で水を求め続けていましたが、息を引き取り、苦しみから解放されました。私にとって彼は、世界で今まさに核兵器によって脅されているすべての罪のない子どもたちを代表しています。毎日、毎秒、核兵器は、私たちの愛するすべての人を、私たちの親しむすべての物を、危機にさらしています。私たちは、この異常さをこれ以上、許していてはなりません。
私たち被爆者は、苦しみと生き残るための真の闘いを通じて、灰の中から生き返るために、この世に終わりをもたらす核兵器について世界に警告しなければならないと確信しました。くり返し、私たちは証言をしてきました。それにもかかわらず、広島と長崎の残虐行為を戦争犯罪と認めない人たちがいます。彼らは、これは「正義の戦争」を終わらせた「よい爆弾」だったというプロパガンダを受け入れています。この神話こそが、今日まで続く悲惨な核軍備競争を導いているのです。
９カ国は、都市全体を燃やし尽くし、地球上の生命を破壊し、この美しい世界を将来世代が暮らしていけないものにすると脅し続けています。核兵器の開発は、国家の偉大さが高まることを表すものではなく、国家が暗黒のふちへと堕落することを表しています。核兵器は必要悪ではなく、絶対悪です。
今年７月７日、世界の圧倒的多数の国々が核兵器禁止条約を投票により採択したとき、私は喜びで感極まりました。かつて人類の最悪のときを目の当たりにした私は、この日、人類の最良のときを目の当たりにしました。私たち被爆者は、７２年にわたり、核兵器の禁止を待ち望んできました。これを、核兵器の終わりの始まりにしようではありませんか。
責任ある指導者であるなら、必ずや、この条約に署名するでしょう。そして歴史は、これを拒む者たちを厳しく裁くでしょう。彼らの抽象的な理論は、それが実は大量虐殺に他ならないという現実をもはや隠し通すことができません。「核抑止」なるものは、軍縮を抑止するものでしかないことはもはや明らかです。私たちはもはや、恐怖のキノコ雲の下で生きることはしないのです。
核武装国の政府の皆さんに、そして、「核の傘」なるものの下で共犯者となっている国々の政府の皆さんに申し上げたい。私たちの証言を聞き、私たちの警告を心に留めなさい。そうすれば、必ずや、あなたたちは行動することになることを知るでしょう。あなたたちは皆、人類を危機にさらしている暴力システムに欠かせない一部分なのです。私たちは皆、悪の凡庸さに気づかなければなりません。
世界のすべての国の大統領や首相たちに懇願します。核兵器禁止条約に参加し、核による絶滅の脅威を永遠に除去してください。
私は１３歳の少女だったときに、くすぶるがれきの中に捕らえられながら、前に進み続け、光に向かって動き続けました。そして生き残りました。今、私たちの光は核兵器禁止条約です。この会場にいるすべての皆さんと、これを聞いている世界中のすべての皆さんに対して、広島の廃虚の中で私が聞いた言葉をくり返したいと思います。「あきらめるな！ （がれきを）押し続けろ！ 動き続けろ！ 光が見えるだろう？ そこに向かってはって行け」
今夜、私たちがオスロの街をたいまつをともして行進するにあたり、核の恐怖の闇夜からお互いを救い出しましょう。どのような障害に直面しようとも、私たちは動き続け、前に進み続け、この光を分かち合い続けます。この光は、この一つの尊い世界が生き続けるための私たちの情熱であり、誓いなのです。（END） 朝日新聞デジタルより
セツコ・サーロウ女史とベアトリス・フィーン女史 BBC NEWS
ノーベル平和賞授賞式典にて。（2017年12月10日にオスロ市役所）
セツコ・サーロウさん（Issuko
Thurlow）とベアトリス・フィーンさん（Beatrice Fihn）
（写真：ナイジェル・ウォルドロン、ゲッティイメージズ）USATODAY
毎日新聞2017/12/10 より
ＩＣＡＮと共に活動、カナダ在住の被爆者が記念講演
【オスロ竹下理子】核兵器を初めて法的に禁じる核兵器禁止条約の採択に主導的な役割を果たした国際ＮＧＯ「核兵器廃絶国際キャンペーン」（ＩＣＡＮ）へのノーベル平和賞授賞式が１０日、オスロ市庁舎で開かれた。ＩＣＡＮのベアトリス・フィン事務局長（３５）と、共に活動してきたカナダ在住の被爆者、サーロー節子さん（８５）がメダルを受け取り、記念講演を行った。サーローさんは「受賞は、核兵器の時代を終わらせることは可能だという大いなる希望を与えてくれる」と述べ、「人類と核兵器は共存できない」と力強く訴えた。
ＩＣＡＮは核兵器使用が人道上破壊的な結果を導くという危険性を訴え、７月の禁止条約採択に尽力した点が評価された。条約は１２２カ国が賛成したが、核保有国や米国の「核の傘」の下にある日本などは交渉に参加せず、米国やロシアなど核保有５大国の駐ノルウェー大使は授賞式を欠席した。
フィン事務局長は講演で「核兵器が使われるリスクは冷戦が終わった時よりも大きくなっている」と指摘。「私たちの運動を批判する人たちは、私たちが現実に基づかない理想主義者であると言う。しかし私たちは、唯一の合理的な選択を示している」と強調。核保有国を名指しし、条約参加を呼びかけた。
広島で被爆し、姉らを失ったサーローさんは「みなさんに広島や長崎で亡くなった人々の存在を感じてほしい。一人一人に名前があり、一人一人が誰かに愛されていた。彼らの死を無駄にしてはいけない」と呼びかけた。「核兵器は必要悪ではなく、絶対悪。禁止条約採択を核兵器の終わりの始まりにしよう」と訴えた。
授賞式には日本原水爆被害者団体協議会の田中熙巳（てるみ）代表委員（８５）と藤森俊希事務局次長（７３）、広島・長崎両市長も出席。ノルウェー・ノーベル賞委員会のアンデルセン委員長が核兵器なき世界に新たな機運を作ったことに敬意を示した。
核兵器廃絶国際キャンペーン（ＩＣＡＮ）とは：
２００７年にオーストラリアで設立された国際ＮＧＯ。日本のピースボートなど１０１カ国に４６８のパートナー団体を持つ。スイスのジュネーブに事務所を置く。各国政府と協力し、核兵器禁止条約の実現を求める広報キャンペーンを展開する。
2017年ノーベル平和賞記念講演スピーチ全文 by ICAN (English)
Award Ceremony Speech
Presentation Speech by Berit Reiss-Andersen, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, 10 December 2017.Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Representatives of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017. On behalf of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, I take great pleasure in congratulating ICAN on this award.
ICAN is receiving the award for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons. ICAN's efforts have given new momentum to the process of abolishing nuclear weapons.
This year's Peace Prize follows in a tradition of awards that have honoured efforts against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and for nuclear disarmament. Twelve Peace Prizes have been awarded, in whole or in part, for this type of peace work. The first went to Philip Noel-Baker in 1959, and the most recent was awarded to Barack Obama in 2009. And now, this year, to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
On two days in August 1945, the world experienced the terrible destructive force of nuclear weapons for the first time. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki instantly killed at least 140,000 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians. Hiroshima was utterly destroyed and large sections of Nagasaki were laid in ruins. But death was not finished with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The death toll continued to rise significantly in the years that followed, and survivors are still suffering from the effects of radiation today.
The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has taught us that nuclear weapons are so dangerous, and inflict so much agony and death on civilian populations, that they must never, ever, be used again.
Today's nuclear weapons are tremendously more destructive than the bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945. A nuclear war could kill millions of people, dramatically alter the climate and the environment for much of the planet, and destabilise societies in a way never before seen by humanity. The notion of a limited nuclear war is an illusion.
Nuclear weapons do not distinguish between military and civilian targets. Used in war, they would impact disproportionately on the civilian population, inflicting vast, unnecessary suffering. It is virtually impossible for civilians to protect themselves against the catastrophic effects of a nuclear attack. The use of nuclear weapons – or even the threat of using them – is therefore unacceptable on any grounds, whether humanitarian, moral or legal.
Despite all this, it remains the case that the global balance of military power is maintained by nuclear weapons. The logic of this balance of terror rests on the proposition that nuclear weapons are such a deterrent that no one would dare attack a nuclear-armed state. The deterrent effect is said to be so strong that it alone has prevented war between the nuclear powers for the last 70 years. The empirical basis for this assumption is highly debatable. It cannot be claimed with any certainty that deterrence has worked as intended. It is also worth keeping in mind that nuclear deterrence requires a credible threat to actually use nuclear weapons. The weapons exist so that they can, if necessary, be deployed.
A number of international agreements and treaties have been entered into which limit the possession and development of nuclear weapons. The most important of these is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT. It takes considerable military and political insight to fully understand all the treaties, agreements and international legal instruments that regulate disarmament and arms control. The views that dominate the political debate are those of the great powers and powerful alliances.
ICAN arose as a protest against the established order. Nuclear weapon issues are not solely a question to be addressed by governments, nor a matter for experts or high-level politicians. Nuclear weapons concern everyone, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. ICAN has succeeded in generating fresh engagement among ordinary people in the campaign against nuclear weapons. The organisation's acronym is perhaps not a coincidence: I CAN.
ICAN's main message is that the world can never be safe as long as we have nuclear weapons. This message resonates with millions of people who perceive that the threat of nuclear war is greater than it has been for a long time, not least due to the situation in North Korea.
Another major concern of ICAN is that the current international legal order is inadequate to deal with the nuclear weapons problem.
The entry into force of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 was a historic breakthrough. It gave formal status to the nuclear powers of the day – the United States, the Soviet Union, the UK, France and China – as states with the legal right to possess nuclear weapons. All other countries that acceded to the treaty pledged, in so doing, not to acquire such weapons. In return, the legally recognized nuclear-weapon states undertook to begin negotiations in good faith to seek nuclear disarmament. This dual pledge is the very core of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and both sides of it must be honoured to maintain the treaty's legitimacy.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is no exaggeration to say that the nuclear-weapon states have only to a limited degree honoured the disarmament commitment they made in the NPT. Let me remind you that in 2000 the NPT's Review Conference stated that the treaty calls for "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament". From an international law perspective, the five legally recognized nuclear-weapon states and their allies have thus assumed a responsibility to help achieve disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons. If the disarmament process had been carried out as intended, ICAN's struggle for a treaty-based ban on nuclear weapons would have been unneeded. It is the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament that has made it necessary to supplement the Non-Proliferation Treaty with other international legal initiatives and commitments.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty applies only to the countries that have acceded to it. India, Pakistan and Israel, which all have nuclear weapons, are not NPT members. Moreover, North Korea, which has carried out six nuclear test explosions, has withdrawn from the treaty. Global nuclear disarmament cannot take place without these countries, too, participating. Yet they reserve for themselves the same right to nuclear weapons as the five states that had acquired such weapons prior to 1970. The five legally recognized nuclear-weapon states, for their part, cite the nuclear arsenals of these other countries as one of several arguments for not yet being able to comply with the NPT's nuclear disarmament requirements.
It is in part to break this vicious cycle that ICAN has advocated a universal, treaty-based ban on nuclear weapons.
ICAN does not accept that the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament is a realpolitik necessity. ICAN's premise is humanitarian, maintaining that any use of nuclear weapons will cause unacceptable human suffering. Binding international prohibitions have already been established for chemical weapons, biological weapons, land mines and cluster weapons, precisely because of the unacceptable harm and suffering that these weapons inflict on civilian populations. It defies common sense that nuclear weapons, which are far more dangerous, are not subject to a comparable ban under international law.
Pointing out this legal gap was a crucial first step on the road to a prohibition treaty. Another important step was the Humanitarian Pledge initiated by the Austrian Government in December 2014. The Pledge is a voluntary national commitment to seek to stigmatise, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons. ICAN has worked resolutely to muster broad international support for the Humanitarian Pledge. To date, 127 states have signed on to this commitment.
ICAN has also been a driving force in efforts to secure a binding international ban of nuclear weapons. On 7 July 2017, a final draft treaty was endorsed by 129 UN member states. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was opened for signature this autumn, and has been signed so far by 56 states. When 50 or more states have also ratified the treaty, it will become binding under international law for the signatory states.
ICAN is a young organisation, founded in 2007 on the initiative of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. ICAN is a loose coalition of 468 NGOs from more than 100 countries. It is impressive that ICAN is able to unite so many different groups in support of a common goal and give a voice to millions of people who are convinced that nuclear weapons do not provide security, but insecurity.
In awarding this year's Peace Prize to ICAN, the Norwegian Nobel Committee seeks to honour this remarkable endeavour to serve the interests of mankind.
The Nobel Committee believes that an international ban on nuclear weapons will be an important, possibly decisive, step on the road to a world without nuclear weapons. Such a goal is fully consistent with the essence of Alfred Nobel's will.
Ladies and gentlemen, ICAN's support for a global ban on nuclear weapons is not uncontroversial. We must acknowledge that the treaty has powerful opponents, but the idea of prohibiting and abolishing nuclear weapons is neither naïve nor new. As early as 1946, in the UN General Assembly's very first resolution, the United Nations called for nuclear disarmament and an international nuclear weapons control regime.
At the Reykjavik Summit in 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan tried to halt the spiralling nuclear arms race between the two superpowers, and came close to concluding an agreement to abolish all long-range nuclear missiles. A year and a half earlier, President Reagan had addressed the people of the United States and the Soviet Union directly, saying:
"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they never will be used. But then, would it not be better to do away with them entirely?"
Today it is more important than ever to support this vision. While the global community may trust that no responsible head of state would ever order another nuclear attack, we have no guarantees that it will not happen. Despite international legal commitments, irresponsible leaders can come to power in any nuclear-armed state and become embroiled in serious military conflicts that veer out of control.
Ultimately, nuclear weapons are controlled by human beings. In spite of advanced security mechanisms and control systems, technical and human errors can occur, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Can we be sure that the control systems of the nuclear powers will not someday be sabotaged by hackers acting on behalf of hostile states, terrorists or extremists?
In short, nuclear weapons are so dangerous that the only responsible course of action is to work for their removal and destruction.
Many people think that the vision of a nuclear weapon-free world, a Global Zero, is utopic, or even irresponsible.
Similar arguments were once used to oppose the treaties banning biological and chemical weapons, cluster weapons and land mines. Nonetheless, the prohibitions became reality and most of these weapons are far less prevalent today as a result. Using them is taboo.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is aware that nuclear weapons disarmament presents far greater challenges than disarmament of the types of weapons I just mentioned. But there is no getting around the fact that the nuclear weapon states have committed, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to work towards disarmament. This is the ultimate objective of the treaty. Through its efforts, ICAN has reminded the nuclear weapon states that their commitment entails a genuine obligation, and the time to honour it is now!
In his Nobel lecture in 1959, Philip Noel-Baker took issue with the widely held opinion that complete nuclear disarmament is impossible to achieve in the real world. He quoted another Peace Prize laureate, Fridtjof Nansen:
"The difficult is what takes a little while; the impossible is what takes a little longer."
The people of ICAN are impatient and visionary, but they are not naïve. ICAN recognizes that the nuclear-armed states cannot eliminate their nuclear weapons overnight. This must be achieved through a mutual, gradual and verifiable disarmament process. But it is the hope of ICAN and the Norwegian Nobel Committee that an international legal ban, and broad popular engagement, will put pressure on all nuclear-armed states and expedite the process.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are two persons on the podium today who, each in their way, are outstanding representatives of the ICAN movement.
Madam Setsuko Thurlow, you were 13 years old when you experienced the bombing of Hiroshima. You have devoted your life to bearing witness to the events of 6 August 1945. You see it as your mission to describe the suffering, fear and death inflicted on your city. No one was spared. Little children, their parents, brothers and sisters, schoolmates and grandparents were killed. You say that war cannot be waged in this way, and that it must never happen again. You do not allow us to forget.
Beatrice Fihn, you are the Executive Director of ICAN and have the challenging task of uniting different organisations and interest groups in pursuit of a common goal. You are a splendid representative of the multitude of idealists who forgo an ordinary career and instead devote all of their time and skills to the work of achieving a peaceful world.
It is an honour to have you here as our guests, and we wish to express our deep and heartfelt gratitude for the work that you do. Our tribute also goes to all the individuals and organisations that you represent.
The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has a solid grounding in Alfred Nobel's will. The will specifies three different criteria for awarding the Peace Prize: the promotion of fraternity between nations, the advancement of disarmament and arms control and the holding and promotion of peace congresses. ICAN works vigorously to achieve nuclear disarmament. ICAN and a majority of UN member states have contributed to fraternity between nations by supporting the Humanitarian Pledge. And through its inspiring and innovative support for the UN negotiations on a Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, ICAN has played an important role in bringing about what in our day and age is equivalent to an international peace congress.
In closing, I would like to quote His Holiness Pope Francis, who recently declared: "Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, create nothing but a false sense of security. They cannot constitute the basis for peaceful coexistence between members of the human family, which must rather be inspired by an ethics of solidarity."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee shares this view. Moreover, it is our firm conviction that ICAN, more than anyone else, has in the past year given the efforts to achieve a world without nuclear weapons a new direction and new vigour.
Thank you.
(End)
The Nobel Peace Prize 2017
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
コメント