In a National Geographic documentary on the cold war, former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers broke the cone of silence surrounding the U.S. nuclear weapons stored at the Volkel air base in the Netherlands.

For decades, the Netherlands (along with most other NATO allies) have kept a policy of ambiguity around the presence of these weapons on their territories. The Germans, in their government coalition agreement of 2009, first broke the silence on this. Now the former Dutch head of state is following suit.

The news has made quite a stir on twitter this morning already. With two Dutch members of parliament- Sjoerd W. Sjoerdsma (D66) and Raymond Knops(CDA) tweeting reactions and support for the removal of these weapons.

The timing couldn’t be better, with American debates taking place this week about the budget for modernisation of these weapons – hopefully American lawmakers will hear the (old) news:  The Dutch don’t want your bombs!

This has been the stated position of parliament for several years. A parliamentary resolution in 2010 called on then Dutch government to inform the United States that its nuclear weapons were no longer required for Dutch security.  The message was reaffirmed in a parliamentary motion at the end of 2012, when Dutch MPs called on the government to act to have the weapons removed from Europe, and to recommend the US not continue its planned modernisation programme.

In response to a parliamentary request for new Dutch policy on nuclear weapons, the current Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans is expected to release an outline of his policy in the coming few weeks (before 21 June).  IKV Pax Christi issued a publication at the beginning of the year encouraging greater transparency, among other things, in Dutch policy. This revelation by Ruud Lubbers lifts the official secrecy veil and offers Mr. Timmermans the opportunity to acknowledge the presence of the nuclear weapons and outline how the Netherlands will uphold its commitments to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons in its national security policy.

Read More 

Van Velzen: ‘For tax reasons this French company has settled in the Netherlands, which is why hardly anybody in the Netherlands knows this nuclear weapon producer even exists, including the Dutch media. By protesting we raise public awareness and the awareness of the company shareholders. Right now these investors may see a profit from investing in nuclear weapons, they are responsible for maintaining an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction though. How comfortable does that make you feel? Why not invest your money in something positive and sustainable?’

The Dutch Campaign against the Arms Trade (http://stopwapenhandel.org/English) arranged the purchase of shares for four activists to be able to participate at the annual meeting and draw attention to EADS’ dubious business practices. Besides the production of nuclear weapons, questions were raised on drones, corruption and the delivery of weapons to Syria.

‘I asked the board if they would stop EADS’ nuclear weapons programme, especially since a majority of countries worldwide are calling for their elimination and banks and pension funds have already started divesting from these inhumane weapons. Their sole response was that they were proud to be contributing to the French Force de Frappe (nukes arsenal). It made me wonder, how anyone could really be proud of being part of this war machinery, or was it really the paycheck and the bonuses they get that they were proud of?’

‘Quite a few Dutch banks invest in nuclear weapon producers, such as ING and ABN Amro. Having been campaigning for a ban on cluster munitions in the past I know how sensitive people are about what banks do with your savings. For good reasons the image of being a nuclear weapons bank doesn’t contribute to the image the bank wants to create of itself towards their clients.  And that’s why campaigning on disinvestment is fun – success is waiting around the corner!’

Do you want to know which banks or pension funds invest in nuclear weapons? Check http://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/

Find out more →

The interpretation of the law provided by the Swiss Federal Council was unambiguous in declaring that the financing of nuclear weapon producers is prohibited by the Swiss Federal Act on War Material, enacted in February 2013. Among the weapons prohibited by the Act, which also covers chemical and biological weapons, cluster bombs and landmines, only nuclear weapons are not explicitly outlawed by international law. By prohibiting any investment in the production of nuclear weapons, Switzerland contributes to making these weapons illegitimate – a decision consistent with the country’s engagement to achieve a universal ban.

The Swiss initiative is not alone. In 2005, the Norwegian Pension Fund divested from companies producing nuclear weapons and the Irish parliament is currently revising a bill that would achieve the same results.

“By continuing to providing money to nuclear weapons companies, banks and other financial institutions are currently facilitating the existence and even modernization of nuclear arsenals, thereby heightening the risk that these weapons will one day be used again,” says Beatrice Fihn, member of ICAN’s International Steering Group, “Divestment can help put an end to nuclear weapons and build momentum towards negotiations of a ban treaty.”

These initiatives are critical to delegitimizing these weapons. Investment in nuclear weapons must be considered a liability, not an economic opportunity.

http://www.dontbankonthebomb.com

During this week, ICAN campaigners from all around the world will take to the streets, meet with policymakers, organise public meetings and more to show their government that they expect full-fledged support for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

In previous years, ICAN has organized Nuclear Abolition Day, featuring non-violent street demonstrations, benefit concerts and recitals, nuclear picnics, vigils, marches, educational workshops and film screenings (click here to see photos from 2012 actions). This year, reflecting the growth of the campaign, Nuclear Abolition Day has been transformed into a global week of action.

How to get involved →

Find out more →

In May 2013 ICAN Australia launched a booklet assessing Australia’s record on nuclear weapons. Titled Disarmament Double-Speak, it summarises Australia’s mixed history in the field of disarmament, its continuing support for US extended nuclear deterrence, its resistance to a global ban on nuclear weapons, the inadequacy of safeguards on uranium exports and investments in nuclear arms companies.

Download report →

The Swedish government has been criticized for neglecting to join 80 other countries – including its Scandinavian neighbours Norway, Denmark and Iceland – in signing a joint statement put forth by South Africa which recognized and called for an increased focus on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in nuclear disarmament discussions.

In an impromptu call to a morning radio show, Bildt fanned the flames by dismissing the statement as “no big deal” and the 80 co-sponsors as “not really serious states”, even going so far as to label the humanitarian arguments in favour of nuclear disarmament as a “side-track” that “no serious states engage in”.

This might come as a surprise to the supporters of the statement, which, in addition to Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Austria and Switzerland, encompassed almost all of Latin America, including Brazil and Mexico, and a majority of African states. The humanitarian approach has also been supported by such organizations as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of the UN (OCHA), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who all emphasized the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons at a government conference in Oslo in March.

Bildt’s apparent fixation on the “serious states” and the “serious approaches” to nuclear disarmament are indicative of his complicity in the stale approach to disarmament in which non-nuclear-armed states are sidelined and forced to wait and hope while the nuclear weapons agenda is fumbled over by the nuclear-armed states and their cohort.

What is perhaps not clear to Mr Bildt, but is to those who had their ear to the ground at the NPT PrepCom and have been watching the nuclear weapons debate over the last year, is that the ground is shifting. The widespread support for the joint statement reveals that more and more states are realizing that a different approach, in which non-nuclear armed states take the lead to propel the agenda towards a ban and the elimination of nuclear weapons, is urgently needed and is indeed gaining momentum.

The list of the 80 countries who signed the Humanitarian Initiative: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Cuba, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Serbia, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia and South Africa.

We are potentially only minutes away from the horror of seeing an entire city flattened in an instant, killing hundreds of thousands of people with no adequate humanitarian relief possible. Its effects would spread across borders and generations. This is madness, not a security strategy.

There is only one cure for this threat. We have to ban nuclear weapons.

Sign the petition

This statement builds upon the Joint Statement on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament given by Switzerland on behalf of 35 States in New York on 22 October 2012, which in turn was an increase on statement at the 2012 NPT PrepCom in Vienna to which there were 16 State signatures. The more-than-doubled number of signatures since October of last year is a clear sign that the humanitarian approach is increasingly resonating among States.

As the statement put it, “this issue is now firmly established on the global agenda”, which has been demonstrated by the outcome of the 2010 Review Conference of the NPT, the 2011 resolution by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to pursue a legally binding instrument which would prohibit the use of and eliminate nuclear weapons, and most recently the March 2013 Oslo conference. It is clear from the statements of a majority of States at the NPT over the last three days that the Oslo Conference was a much-welcomed and highly successful initiative by the Norwegian MFA in changing the framing of nuclear disarmament and kick-starting an alternative dialogue to the deadlocked negotiations in traditional forums which places the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons front and center.

The high participation to the Joint Statement indicated that non-nuclear states are willing to take up the charge to delegitimize these weapons and push for their total elimination at a far faster pace. The upcoming follow-up conference in Mexico provides an opportunity to continue to drive the process towards the elimination of nuclear weapons forward.

The list of the 80 countries who signed the Humanitarian Initiative: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Cuba, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Serbia, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia and South Africa.