'.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE
REGIONAL OFFICE FOR THE WESTERN PACIFIC BUREAU REGIONAL DU PACIFIQUE OCCIDENTAL
REGIONAL COMMITTEE
WPRlRC46INGO/6 15 September 1995 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Forty-sixth session Manila 11-15 September 1995
-
STATEMENT BY DR AURORA A. PARONG, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTERNATIONAL PHYSICIANS FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR WAR
Mr Chairman, honoured Delegates, colleagues and friends, We applaud the decision taken by the Regional Committee to adopt a resolution "deplor(lng) the testing of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world and particularly in the Region." We congratulate the Committee for taking a strong stand on the issue by "call(ing) upon those governments intending to test such weapons to desist from doing so immediately." When President Chirac announced last June 13 that France would sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or CTBT in the Autumn of 1996, many thought such an announcement would elicit warm words of goodwill from the world community. But this was not so, for along with this declaration came the announcement that in the months prior to the signing of the treaty, France will have to ensure the safety and reliability of its nuclear weapons. And despite a strong wave of international protest, the first of eight planned tests at Mururoa pushed through. On August 17, 1995, China conducted its 43rd test at its Lop Nor test site in Singkiang. They used a nuclear device larger than what the French exploded, and five times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. China is planning more tests this year and in 1996, also before committing to a CTBT. Beijing claims that it needs more nuclear tests because China lags behind other nuclear powers' testing programmes.
WPR/RC46/NGO/6 page 2
J
The good news from those monitoring the talks at the Conference on Disarmament currently ongoing in Geneva, is that a CTBT may in fact, be signed by 1996. The formulation of the delegation from Australia is currently being supported by the French and subsequently endorsed by the United Kingdom, United States of America and many of the Western and Eastern European states. In this formulation, "Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapons test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control. Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way, participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion." That is the good news. The bad news, however, is that explosions are not needed to develop nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia and the United Kingdom have been working for years to prefect laboratory testing of their nuclear arsenals through computer simulations. The reason why France cannot desist from testing immediately is that it needs time to develop the same capability. Likewise with China. The current trend is that nuclear weapon states will continue to strive for .qualitative improvements in their stockpiles, instead of working towards a mutual political commitment to eliminate any reliance on nuclear weapons. Breaking this trend requires massive efforts of all peoples of the world opposed to this nuclear madness. Not least, it requires the sustained efforts of those of you, distinguished . delegates, who believe that nuclear issues should be a major concern of this organization. Your resolution on the Health and Environmental Effects of Nuclear Weapons adds greatly to the World Health Organization's work on matters related to nuclear weapons. Over the past decade, WHO has produced a number of reports and has passed several resolutions drawing attention to the short and long-term consequences of the use of nuclear weapons on human health and the environment. In a landmark declaration, WHO went as far as stating that "nuclear weapons constitute the greatest immediate threat to the health and welfare of mankind". WHO has clearly shown that no health service in the world could cope with the casualties resulting from the use of even a single nuclear weapon, and that, "the only possible solution is primary prevention; that is, the prevention of nuclear war".
-
-
WPRlRC46fNGO/6
PageJ
During the Forty-Sixth session of the World Health Assembly, it was concluded that primary prevention requires legal clarity as to the lawfulness of nuclear weapons. Thus, in May 1993, the WHA decided to request the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the following question: "In view of health and the environment, would the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution?" This question is currently being debated at the World Court. We fervently hope that worldwide protests and public outrage against current tests can be
-.
sustained, and in fact, carried further to unwaveringly show that it is not only tests but more importantly, nuclear weapons that are unacceptable. We hope that your voices will join many others in calling for a legally binding, multilaterally negotiated treaty for the abolition of all nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. We cannot emphasize the role of those of us in the health sector in convincing world leaders of the need to place health issues high on the political agenda. The nuclear debacle is but one example of how those in the health sector can and should assume a key role in influencing political decisions in matters relating to health and welfare. There is a similar, and in fact, larger responsibility with regards to issues relating to development. The Forty-Eight World Health Assembly "urges Member States to take appropriate steps for consultations to raise the awareness of the general public, political leaders, ministries and other partners concerned with social and economic development policy to the need to place health high on the political agenda, in order to address the serious health challenges of the coming decades". The Director-General has been requested to develop "a new holistic global health policy based on the concepts of equity and solidarity, emphasizing the individual's, the family'S and the community's responsibility for the health and placing health within the overall development framework". We hope you will guard against the tendency of health planners to impose technological solutions for fundamentally social and political problems. The major determinants of health are, in fact, not medical but social and political. We know that this is why far reaching improvements in the health of populations coincide not with medical breakthroughs but with improvements in standard of living.
WPRlRC46/NGO/6 page 4
Health for all cannot be achieved without much needed political and economic restructuring. Social justice and health are inseparable. Only after realizing this can we begin to hope for a peaceful, secure and healthy world. Thank you.
-.