0:00:00 > 0:00:02Now on BBC News it's time for a special edition of HARDtalk
0:00:02 > 0:00:14with this year's winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
0:00:14 > 0:00:21Welcome to HARDtalk, iron Stephen Sackur. Today I'm in Oslo to meet
0:00:21 > 0:00:26the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize in this year, the award goes to the
0:00:26 > 0:00:32international -- the award goes to International Campaign to Abolish
0:00:32 > 0:00:37Nuclear Weapons. Two women from very different generations who have
0:00:37 > 0:00:40worked tirelessly for nuclear disarmament. They believe they have
0:00:40 > 0:00:44embarked on a campaign which will ultimately lead to the elimination
0:00:44 > 0:00:50of all the world's nuclear weapons. But are they changemakers or wishful
0:00:50 > 0:00:55thinkers?
0:01:11 > 0:01:15Beatrice Fihn and Setsuko Thurlow, many congratulations on winning the
0:01:15 > 0:01:20Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, welcome to HARDtalk I want to begin
0:01:20 > 0:01:24by asking both of you how you felt when you heard this news is that you
0:01:24 > 0:01:29had won the Nobel Peace Prize. You are the Executive Director of ICAN,
0:01:29 > 0:01:33International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Did you expect it?
0:01:33 > 0:01:40Thank you to having me here. We did not expect it at all. We have been
0:01:40 > 0:01:46so preoccupied with the treaty and had it concluded in the summer.The
0:01:46 > 0:01:49treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons which got so many nations around the
0:01:49 > 0:01:53world to sign up to.Exactly. So what I got the phone call, I was in
0:01:53 > 0:01:58complete shock, so honoured, I thought it was a prank at first. We
0:01:58 > 0:02:03were nervous. Many powerful people don't like this treaty. I was a
0:02:03 > 0:02:07little bit paranoid. Then we watched the live -- the live broadcast to
0:02:07 > 0:02:12make sure it was real. Just such an incredible honour for the whole
0:02:12 > 0:02:16campaign, for all the people that have fought against nuclear weapons
0:02:16 > 0:02:22for so long.Just wonderful. As you say, you look at Setsuko Thurlow.
0:02:22 > 0:02:28For you, this is the most extraordinary, personal story as
0:02:28 > 0:02:34well because you use it with me today as a survivor of Hiroshima.
0:02:34 > 0:02:40You were there in 1945. For you, the news that the Nobel committee had
0:02:40 > 0:02:44decided to recognise the work of the International Campaign to Abolish
0:02:44 > 0:02:51Nuclear Weapons, what did it mean to you?I just couldn't believe it,
0:02:51 > 0:03:00that first moment. I was numb, I think. I pinched myself. Is it real?
0:03:00 > 0:03:04But the people around me were screaming with joy. So it must be
0:03:04 > 0:03:13true. But it took me four days before I really felt like I actually
0:03:13 > 0:03:21won.I think we have to start this interview is it so remarkable for me
0:03:21 > 0:03:27to sit with you. We have to start by having you reflect on the memories
0:03:27 > 0:03:35you hold of Hiroshima 1945 because, in a sense, everything about the
0:03:35 > 0:03:40campaign today is about the reality of what nuclear weapons do. So if
0:03:40 > 0:03:48you would take me back to that day in the summer of 45.I was a
0:03:48 > 0:03:5513-year-old grade seven student in a girls school. I was at the Army
0:03:55 > 0:04:00headquarters that morning instead of classroom because Japan was losing
0:04:00 > 0:04:06fast in the war. And they utilised all the cheap Labour. So I was at
0:04:06 > 0:04:11the Army headquarters. And that was a Monday morning and at eight
0:04:11 > 0:04:18o'clock, we had the assembly and the major said, this is the beginning of
0:04:18 > 0:04:25your work and you demonstrate your patriotism to the nation and loyalty
0:04:25 > 0:04:31to the emperor. Yes, sir, we will! At that moment, I assure the blueish
0:04:31 > 0:04:41white flash from the window and then I had... Was there a noise? No,
0:04:41 > 0:04:48nothing. They say there was a thunderous noise but people far away
0:04:48 > 0:04:55heard it. I didn't hear anything. So the moment I saw the flash, my body
0:04:55 > 0:05:02was thrown up in the air and I lost consciousness. When I regained
0:05:02 > 0:05:10consciousness, in total darkness and silence come -- silence, then I
0:05:10 > 0:05:17thought, this is it. I was faced with death. Then I started hearing
0:05:17 > 0:05:25the faint voices of my classmates in the dark. Help me, mother, help me.
0:05:25 > 0:05:31Then, all of a sudden, somebody started pushing my left shoulder.
0:05:31 > 0:05:36Don't give up, girl. Keep pushing, keep kicking. I'm trying to free
0:05:36 > 0:05:45you. You see the sun coming through that opening? Crawl toward that. As
0:05:45 > 0:05:49clear as possible. And that's what I did in the total darkness. I don't
0:05:49 > 0:05:54know how many seconds I took but by the time I came out, the rubble was
0:05:54 > 0:06:01already on fire. There were about 30 girls who were with me in the same
0:06:01 > 0:06:08room, they were all burned to death alive.Wow. How do you think you
0:06:08 > 0:06:13survived? It sounds like a miracle. Yes, I think so it's like a miracle
0:06:13 > 0:06:19but I don't believe, some people say, well, God saved you to do the
0:06:19 > 0:06:23job for disarmament. No, that's a nonsensical interpretation. God
0:06:23 > 0:06:30doesn't help you for that. It was sheer, sheer luck, I think, the
0:06:30 > 0:06:37people who were just half a metre away from me just incinerated.And
0:06:37 > 0:06:41it's so horrible to reflect on it but how many members of your
0:06:41 > 0:06:49extended family and your classmates did you lose?I lost 351 schoolmates
0:06:49 > 0:06:55who happened to be at another place in the centre part of the city.
0:06:55 > 0:07:00Together with several thousand other students. All the kids from all the
0:07:00 > 0:07:05high schools who were brought to the centre and just above them, the
0:07:05 > 0:07:09detonation of atomic bomb took place. Those young people just
0:07:09 > 0:07:20didn't have a chance. They simply vaporised. Melted. And family? I
0:07:20 > 0:07:28lost eight of my family, yes. And when I think of my Hiroshima memory,
0:07:28 > 0:07:37the first person I think of is my nephew, four-year-old little boy,
0:07:37 > 0:07:45who kept asking for water because he was burned so badly. I saw him about
0:07:45 > 0:07:54twice or three times, just blood, condensed, and everybody was begging
0:07:54 > 0:08:05for water. 4000dC heat on that ground level. Everybody was thirsty.
0:08:05 > 0:08:13Anyway, I did see that day something I can never forget. People looked
0:08:13 > 0:08:23like ghosts, not human beings, because of the skin and flesh was
0:08:23 > 0:08:32burned, blackened, swollen, melting, the hair was standing up. Naked. And
0:08:32 > 0:08:37some people were carrying their rivals. Some people just collapsed
0:08:37 > 0:08:43onto the ground. At their stomach burst open, it in test times
0:08:43 > 0:08:52stretched out. So I had to learn to step over the dead bodies to escape.
0:08:52 > 0:08:58It is very hard to listen to you today and not feel utterly horrified
0:08:58 > 0:09:04by it all. And yet you are a survivor and you have become a
0:09:04 > 0:09:09committed campaigner through all your adult life against nuclear
0:09:09 > 0:09:16weapons and it's so interesting to me, Beatrice, that the testimony of
0:09:16 > 0:09:21Setsuko has become such a central part of your campaign. 72 years on
0:09:21 > 0:09:27why, in your opinion, is it so important to harness the real-life
0:09:27 > 0:09:33testimony of Setsuko and a few other survivors that remain, are able to
0:09:33 > 0:09:37talk about it?Well, this is what the weapons do. This is what they
0:09:37 > 0:09:42are. This is nuclear weapons. We like to think about them as abstract
0:09:42 > 0:09:49concepts of power. Theories, wargames. But this is what nuclear
0:09:49 > 0:09:53weapons are. If we keep nuclear weapons forever, they will be used
0:09:53 > 0:09:58again. This will happen. There is literally no preparedness to deal
0:09:58 > 0:10:03with this. There is nothing, relief agencies or naff -- national
0:10:03 > 0:10:07authorities can do to help people. We help example the Red Cross do
0:10:07 > 0:10:12research on what they would do as a emergency relief act in terms of
0:10:12 > 0:10:16helping survivors. They said they would pull their staff out. They
0:10:16 > 0:10:21can't help. The UN humanitarian agencies to the same thing. They say
0:10:21 > 0:10:26they are powerless, they can't do anything.But when you say this is
0:10:26 > 0:10:29the reality of nuclear weapons, it was the reality of the nuclear
0:10:29 > 0:10:34weapons that we used in 1945. I guess the point that so many
0:10:34 > 0:10:37strategists, thinkers on international security issues would
0:10:37 > 0:10:47make to you is that actually, the fact that the big world powers have
0:10:47 > 0:10:51maintained their nuclear weapons deter and over the last seven
0:10:51 > 0:10:57decades has actually ensured that they have not been used and that
0:10:57 > 0:11:01actually we have not had major wars between those big powers since the
0:11:01 > 0:11:07Second World War.I wouldn't agree with that. I think nuclear weapons,
0:11:07 > 0:11:12we have been very close to use of nuclear weapons several times since
0:11:12 > 0:11:16the Cold War.But isn't that the point of deterrence? You can get
0:11:16 > 0:11:22close and have huge confrontation and have wars even by proxy but you
0:11:22 > 0:11:27cannot step over the line because of the theory of mutually assured
0:11:27 > 0:11:34destruction that comes with these weapons for her Setsuko's testimony
0:11:34 > 0:11:39is the ultimate bearing witness.One day it will fail. We see now it is
0:11:39 > 0:11:43being threatened for use. We see world leaders about totally
0:11:43 > 0:11:48destroying not just a city, not just a regime but the whole country, for
0:11:48 > 0:11:51example and that is really dangerous. We have multiple threads
0:11:51 > 0:11:57now. We have many more actors with nuclear weapons. We are terrorists,
0:11:57 > 0:12:01cyber security issues, we have so mini accidents. A lot of research
0:12:01 > 0:12:06coming out now on how close to accidents we were during the Cold
0:12:06 > 0:12:10War, misunderstandings. They thought a weather satellite was an incoming
0:12:10 > 0:12:13missile. One person in the Soviet Union said, that doesn't feel right.
0:12:13 > 0:12:19He disregarded orders. Nuclear weapons have bought as to the brink
0:12:19 > 0:12:24so many times now fuelling conflicts today. The war in Iraq. That was
0:12:24 > 0:12:28based on this issue of weapons of mass destruction. We have a tense
0:12:28 > 0:12:33situation in Iran. In Kashmir. Right now with North Korea. Nuclear
0:12:33 > 0:12:37weapons are not solving that problem. Nuclear weapons are
0:12:37 > 0:12:43fuelling it.Let's unpick a bit of the work you have done, the work
0:12:43 > 0:12:46that has led you receiving this amazing prize here in Oslo. I
0:12:46 > 0:12:54suppose more than anything else, you got the prize this year because you
0:12:54 > 0:12:58were in the ICAN, in its national campaign, were the driving force
0:12:58 > 0:13:02behind this international treaty which more than 120 countries have
0:13:02 > 0:13:06proved, which outlaws, which prohibits nuclear weapons. The big
0:13:06 > 0:13:12problem with that treaty is that it does not include the support of any
0:13:12 > 0:13:19of the nations that currently have nuclear weapons. And that surely
0:13:19 > 0:13:25discredits it as a meaningful treaty?Absolutely not. We see with
0:13:25 > 0:13:30other treaties for example that norms can be very powerful and
0:13:30 > 0:13:35influence behaviour also with parties that are not a part of it.
0:13:35 > 0:13:38Landmines, the big producers, even though they didn't sign a treaty,
0:13:38 > 0:13:42they have shifted their behaviours. The market for landmines has
0:13:42 > 0:13:46dropped. We have seen efforts to clean up landmines being done,
0:13:46 > 0:13:50saving people's lives continuously because of the treaty.One practical
0:13:50 > 0:13:54question on how this treaty works because its central to the work you
0:13:54 > 0:14:01do. You say when 50 countries have formally it, it will be
0:14:01 > 0:14:04international law. My question is, what does that really mean, if the
0:14:04 > 0:14:08United States and Russia and China let alone countries like North Korea
0:14:08 > 0:14:13and we might talk about that more, if those nations do not accept this
0:14:13 > 0:14:20quote unquote international law, what meaning does it have?
0:14:20 > 0:14:26Still impact their behaviour and shift their norms. How? The US
0:14:26 > 0:14:27Still impact their behaviour and shift their norms. How? The US did
0:14:27 > 0:14:34not participate but last year, the last American producer stopped
0:14:34 > 0:14:37producing destinations, saying that there is a growing international
0:14:37 > 0:14:41stigma, there is bad business to keep investing in this weapon, and
0:14:41 > 0:14:45even if perhaps the Trump administration now is trying to
0:14:45 > 0:14:49reverse the policy is, the company has said we will not do this.I want
0:14:49 > 0:14:54to quote you something. OK. Something the Nobel committee said
0:14:54 > 0:14:59in their citation in giving the award. They said this - we live in
0:14:59 > 0:15:03the world today where the risk of nuclear weapons being used is
0:15:03 > 0:15:10greater than it has been for a very long time.It's true, two years
0:15:10 > 0:15:18advance the place, there is a far greater today than 75 years ago. I
0:15:18 > 0:15:23thought what I experienced in that city, was a catastrophic disaster.
0:15:23 > 0:15:31But if anything like under the bomb is used, human suffering is not
0:15:31 > 0:15:36going to be that scale. The whole city, whole region, half of the
0:15:36 > 0:15:41continent, could be melting away. That kind of different situation
0:15:41 > 0:15:52from 72 years ago and somehow, I think it is a madness to think that
0:15:52 > 0:15:57deterrence works, therefore we manage not to have the war past so
0:15:57 > 0:16:03many years.Well, I'm not sure that deterrence theory seems so
0:16:03 > 0:16:09implausible if one considers the strategies of the United States,
0:16:09 > 0:16:13Russia and China, but I do want to talk to you particularly about North
0:16:13 > 0:16:16Korea because we have seen the North Korean developing nuclear weapons
0:16:16 > 0:16:21programme in recent weeks and months. We now know that they have
0:16:21 > 0:16:25quite an advanced capability, not just to weaponise but also be into
0:16:25 > 0:16:29miniature rise so they can put it on an intercontinental ballistic
0:16:29 > 0:16:34missile. We have seen those tests. You as a Japanese citizen, albeit a
0:16:34 > 0:16:40woman who now in Canada, surely you, that gives you pause. I mean Japan
0:16:40 > 0:16:44right now is protect did by the American nuclear umbrella. Are you
0:16:44 > 0:16:48suggesting to me that the Japanese people would be happy to see the
0:16:48 > 0:16:53Americans give up their nuclear weapons and to Japan to lose that
0:16:53 > 0:17:00protection?I think many serious Japanese are thinking that
0:17:00 > 0:17:06maintaining the alliance, the relationship with the United States,
0:17:06 > 0:17:13which is ready to use nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon,
0:17:13 > 0:17:19and that makes Japan more vulnerable.On a human level what is
0:17:19 > 0:17:24your reaction when you hear Donald Trump talk about fire and fury?He
0:17:24 > 0:17:28doesn't understand there are millions of human beings who could
0:17:28 > 0:17:38suffer from this and I have seen so many 100 thousand people miles away
0:17:38 > 0:17:43-- melt away and how a human can we be? That is totally unacceptable
0:17:43 > 0:17:51moral behaviour. I will tell him that. And I will say the same to the
0:17:51 > 0:17:55North Korean leader as well. They are behaving charitably and
0:17:55 > 0:18:04acceptably.-- totally unacceptably. In the not so distant past, we saw
0:18:04 > 0:18:07Iran tell lies about the nature of its nuclear programme. They were
0:18:07 > 0:18:12exposed ultimately the IAEA and now run is strict monitoring programme
0:18:12 > 0:18:17but it is easy to disguise nuclear development, including military
0:18:17 > 0:18:24developments. Now, I will quote you words of one expert in the field, a
0:18:24 > 0:18:29nuclear physicist, Peter Zimmerman, he says that in me" on hydrogen
0:18:29 > 0:18:34bonds are small enough to hide in a coat closet. Verification of their
0:18:34 > 0:18:38destruction in the absence of a yet to be determined mechanism, because
0:18:38 > 0:18:43this is nothing you talk about your specific, and in the absence of a
0:18:43 > 0:18:46strong international consensus verification is impossible. And with
0:18:46 > 0:18:50regard to North Korea for example, isn't that a truth that means the
0:18:50 > 0:18:57big powers cannot sacrifice their nuclear weapons?No, because as long
0:18:57 > 0:19:01as we, some countries keep nuclear weapons you will inside
0:19:01 > 0:19:04proliferation. If a country like Britain who have spent the last 70
0:19:04 > 0:19:08years arguing that if their weapons equal safety, of course a country
0:19:08 > 0:19:12like North Korea will think the same, or a run. Why wouldn't they?
0:19:12 > 0:19:15We're never going to be able to address the proliferation challenges
0:19:15 > 0:19:20and we start rejecting development as an acceptable means of protecting
0:19:20 > 0:19:23ourselves. Threatening to mass murder civilians should not be a
0:19:23 > 0:19:28legitimate way of of ensuring safety. It creates an safety. It
0:19:28 > 0:19:33creates a heightened risk for it. When we address that, the
0:19:33 > 0:19:38verification, the technical challenges will be solved. It is the
0:19:38 > 0:19:42political will that needs to happen. It is interesting, gibberish talk
0:19:42 > 0:19:46about changing the political will but politics is also about, you
0:19:46 > 0:19:52know, politicians listening to them are trying to appeal to the public
0:19:52 > 0:19:55around the world and even democracies, at least. Here is
0:19:55 > 0:20:01something very interesting that I just saw the other day. Written by a
0:20:01 > 0:20:04political science professor, very respected security expert, at
0:20:04 > 0:20:10Stamford University in the US. He surveyed opinion in Donald Trump's
0:20:10 > 0:20:16America about US attitudes to using nuclear weapons and he found 50% of
0:20:16 > 0:20:22Americans today would approve of killing 2 million, for examples,
0:20:22 > 0:20:28Iranian civilians if that would prevent a military conflict in which
0:20:28 > 0:20:3520,000 US soldiers might die. That's apparently the reality of US public
0:20:35 > 0:20:41opinion today.How are you going to shift those? We have to do a lot of
0:20:41 > 0:20:45work. This is also what the treaty is for. It is not the end goal, the
0:20:45 > 0:20:49treaty is the tool to change perceptions for, as they said, for
0:20:49 > 0:20:5370 years, we have had this kind of acceptance of nuclear weapons and we
0:20:53 > 0:20:57face that all the time, people say you won't be able to change so of
0:20:57 > 0:21:01course people will say that.It isn't you will not be able to change
0:21:01 > 0:21:05it, the tide is against you, Donald Trump is proposing to spend tens and
0:21:05 > 0:21:10tens of billions of dollars upgrading and improving America's
0:21:10 > 0:21:15nuclear weapons capability and you can get that will lead to similar
0:21:15 > 0:21:19investments in Russia and in China as well. So it isn't just sort of
0:21:19 > 0:21:23coping with the status quo, the tide is running against you.The results
0:21:23 > 0:21:29are a huge Korean resistance to that. We have seen in the US Senate,
0:21:29 > 0:21:33people are concerned about who has these weapons. People are worried
0:21:33 > 0:21:39that someone rational its control, someone who can be very easily
0:21:39 > 0:21:42provoked with a tweet for example, would have control of the nuclear
0:21:42 > 0:21:45weapons and I think that is the thing, when people start questioning
0:21:45 > 0:21:49who should have these weapons and when people start being worried
0:21:49 > 0:21:52about Kim Jong warned or Donald Trump having control over nuclear
0:21:52 > 0:21:56weapons, I think you are actually worried about nuclear weapons
0:21:56 > 0:21:59because it means that you wreck it knows.Deterrence doesn't always
0:21:59 > 0:22:05work. You suggesting that few in the ICAN campaigns the equity --a clear
0:22:05 > 0:22:09equivalent is between Donald Trump and Kim Jong all?We are focused on
0:22:09 > 0:22:16the weapons, who has the weapons, there own right hands.Setsuko, a
0:22:16 > 0:22:21final word to you.What did you want to say? As an interviewer, you of
0:22:21 > 0:22:27course have to challenge us and you are trying to be devils advocate, I
0:22:27 > 0:22:34suppose. I hope you don't really... I am trying to reflect, I am trying
0:22:34 > 0:22:40to reflect on seven decades...As somebody who personally experienced,
0:22:40 > 0:22:44as have seen an entire city just destroyed, glitter rated, and
0:22:44 > 0:22:51hundreds of thousands of people simply scorched. Carbonised. And we
0:22:51 > 0:22:56are talking about human beings. It is totally unacceptable anyway, any
0:22:56 > 0:23:02time.One final question to you because we are almost out of time,
0:23:02 > 0:23:05we have lived through the most extraordinary period, you know,
0:23:05 > 0:23:11which...I have to say the whole thing we are talking about is
0:23:11 > 0:23:17madness! Shear madness! My god! Guest, OK...You have had time of
0:23:17 > 0:23:20your 80s some years to reflect on human nature, to use it here today
0:23:20 > 0:23:24as one of the most passionate advocates of nuclear disarmament,
0:23:24 > 0:23:28you sit here today truly believing that we human beings are ever going
0:23:28 > 0:23:35to agree to give up the most potent weapon we have ever invented? Do you
0:23:35 > 0:23:40believe in your heart we humans are capable of doing that?I do. If I
0:23:40 > 0:23:45don't, I cannot afford to be in the peace movement. I do. We have
0:23:45 > 0:23:51achieved a small goal and we are going to achieve many more before we
0:23:51 > 0:23:57get rid of all the nuclear weapons. So we are determined. The ultimate
0:23:57 > 0:24:06message is learn from history.Yes. Right. And take action.Based on
0:24:06 > 0:24:15your conviction. We have to end there but Setsuko Thurlow and
0:24:15 > 0:24:20Beatrice Fihn, thank you very much for being on HARDtalk once again and
0:24:20 > 0:24:23congratulations once again for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.