|
Can
we learn to live
without
the bomb?
By
Jan
Oberg
TFF
director
February 19, 2002
For the project INSTEAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
By the Swedish Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War (SLMK) in cooperation with International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
(IPPNW)
Ten years after the so-called end of the Cold War,
nuclear weapons are still with us. There is the BMD, the
risk of diversion of fissile materials, the fear of
nuclearisation of terrorism. The weapons and their means
of delivery have become ever more sophisticated. Through
base systems, sub-marines, aircraft carriers, the global
reach of militarism has intensified. Still, in proportion
to the increasing threat all this represents to
humankind's survival as well as to democracy and global
development, public debate with visions of a
nuclear-free is desperately feeble.
Advocates of a nuclear-free world, face immensely
powerful governments and military-industrial-scientific
structures. We also face the arrogance of power of the
roughly 600 individuals (presidents, prime ministers,
defence ministers, chiefs of staffs and commanders) who
operate the global nuclear system, over and above the
heads of 6 billion people on Earth. There has never been
a referendum on whether or not citizens wanted to be
'secured' or 'defended' by nuclear weapons. Indeed, one
could advance the hypothesis that nuclear weapons would
be abolished if true national and global democracy were a
reality. But advocates of nuclear freedom must also do
some soul-searching and ask: have we chosen the most
effective strategies and tactics in our work for nuclear
disarmament? My answer is a definite 'no'!
The, perhaps provocative, thesis of this analysis is
that we have:
a) underestimated the human, psychological,
existential and cultural-cosmological aspects of the
nuclear age;
b) we have worked far too much against the nuclear
weapons as such (technical-material criticism) compared
to working out visions of a better nuclear-free and
peaceful world (existential, philosophical
constructivism).
Existential aspects - or: what is so attractive
about nuclear weapons?
While most people abhor nuclear weapons and war, they
also, consciously or un-consciously, embrace them as
something good. Many have infused positive values into
the very existence of the Bomb. It carries a secret
as to how it will "act" the day it is used and few have
ever seen a nuclear weapon. It is mystical and belongs to
a teasingly exciting but closed society and is said to
have magic powers. While it is a threat to all, it also
carries the hope of our salvation; we can hope to obtain
"security" from an evil enemy who, if he tries to kill
us, will be killed himself.
By infusing the bomb with godlike imagery and
integrating it in what is a consistent belief system
bordering on deep religiosity, people can play God
themselves, become the Destroyer and the Maker, create an
eternal future or punish - themselves and/or others. What
Robert Jay Lifton calls the "passionate embrace of
nuclear weapons as a solution to death anxiety and a way
of restoring a lost sense of immortality" could be, I
believe, one of the least thought of explanations of the
fascination held by many vis-a-vis the omnipotent
Bomb.
Another dimension is that of individual versus
collective death. The imagery of mass-destructive
weapons is filled with allusions to death and dying. The
search for the smallest unit of life led to the atom, the
splitting of which is also the key to utter destruction.
Could one argue that nuclear mass death is more
attractive or more acceptable than individual, natural
death? If it is true, as Tom Lehrer sang in the early
1960s, that in a nuclear war "we'll all go together when
we go, every Hottentot and every Eskimo" - then, one may
hypothesise, our individual death becomes somewhat easier
to think of and live with. The individual is relieved of
the pain and fear in meeting death alone and can imagine
that he/she will meet loved ones "on the other side."
Closely related to this is the whole question of
suicide - the so-called balance of (nuclear)
terror and nuclear war often being compared to suicide:
if we start we will get killed ourselves. If there
are any signs to the effect that our present
global civilisation and our times are suicidal, it is the
first time in human history that we are also able
to carry out the decision to exterminate ourselves and a
considerable part, if not all, of Creation.
If we want to rid the world of nuclear weapons, we
have to address these deep-seated existential issues, get
them on the table, dialogue about them and overcome them
as obstacles to change. It will not help us to focus on
and attack the weapons or the nuclear managers, as is
done in demonstrations, petitions, disarmament and arms
control negotiations.
In front of us, thus, lies a huge existential,
educational and soul-searching task that can only be
approached through small-group and global dialogue and
research: what are the positive aspects of nuclear
weapons that have, for fifty years, prevented people
world wide from rising against them as the utter madness
they de facto represent?
Culture, cosmology and ethics
Except for the Chinese, Indian and Pakistani nuclear
weapons, all are Christian nukes. They are the
inventions and products of a Western or Occidental
'social grammar' as well as the West's superior
technology and science. Nuclear weapons can be seen as
isomorphic with pyramidal or feudal structures of society
and are managed by an all-powerful elite that seeks to
dominate other peoples, other cultures and Nature. Male
science came across the atom when trying to deprive
Mother Nature of her secrets. Their function is conceived
within a short time perspective - Big Bangs delivered
within a few minutes over thousands of kilometres, a
quick ending of a war or of all of civilisation. They are
the embodiment of the power of science and technology
over ethics and spirituality.
They are isomorphic with a mono-theistic belief
system. Presumably, the user of nuclear weapons is
completely convinced that there is only one truth, that
he possesses that truth and that he has 'God on our
side.' In a culture based on poly-theism and on the
belief that there can be more than one single truth, like
e.g. Gandhianism and Buddhism, nuclear weapons and their
use seem more difficult to explain and justify. Further,
nuclear weapons are deeply anthropocentric; they are
extended powers of Man, the Man that is the centre of
everything, which means that there is nothing sacred and
nothing above Man. Since the test in Alamagordo,
code-named Trinity, an ever more secularised,
technocratic and God-forgetting Occident took upon it to
play God. Never before had Man been able to even think of
the decision of whether or not to let Humanity live.
Hitherto, that had belonged exclusively to the authority
of God. Since 1945 Man competes with God about being the
Almighty. And we are reminded of Robert Oppenheimer's "I
am become Death, the shatterer of the world" as well as
Einstein's famous dictum that everything then changed
except our ways of thinking.
In terms of ethics on might say that Kant's
categorical imperative became outdated as a global
rule. Philosopher Hans Jonas, for instance, rightly
points out that the ever open question of what humans are
or ought to be is now less important compared to the
"first commandment tacitly underlying it, but never
before in need of enunciation: That they should be -
indeed as human beings." We need, he says, to expand Kant
and observe a rule that he formulates in this manner:
"Act so that the effects of your action are compatible
with the permanence of genuine human life." That is, with
the advent of nuclearism, we need to stress that there
should be something rather than nothing and that
we and the world will hardly survive in the long run
without an ethics of global responsibility. The
fundamentally new ethical claim is that we are
responsible for preserving the Earth precisely
because we can destroy it, and that was not a
relevant issue before 1945.
There are at least other essential aspects on the Bomb
as expressive of Western cosmology. It is a deeply
male-dominated technology and civilisation. The war
system and the military-industrial system is the extreme
expression of it; the Bomb has virtually no female
aspects such as nurturing, mutuality, permanence of
humanity, non-contractual obligations, cultivation of
Nature, respect or care for future generations. Indeed,
it is the negation of all that.
Secondly, it seems the West cannot live without
enemies. If you do not have them, you construct them.
Most security experts and politicians seem to depart from
the utterly misguided assumption that, first, there is an
objective threat assessment done and then military
defence and security policies are developed to meet them
and reduce their potential impact. The whole system
operates the other way around as can be seen in the
reaction by the West to the dissolution of the Soviet
Union and the Warsaw Pact: the war-preparing system
continues virtually unchanged while images of threats and
favourite enemies are produced through a kind of assembly
line.
Third, the Western obsession with enemies
points in the direction of an inner weakness bordering on
paranoia. The more wealth one owns, the more power and
privileges one has in an ever more unequal world, the
more there is to fear to lose. Thus, others more easily
come to look like envious, greedy and threatening - be it
refugees, asylum-seekers, terrorists or 'rogue' states.
All dangers have to be fought. There is a potential
terrorist or bomber lurking around every corner - and
thus we have the pathological, autistic system of
self-created threats producing ever more
sophisticated weapons and using more and more scarce
resources irrespective of what reality actually looks
like. The weapons are put to use to legitimate and
justify the power system and thereby creating more future
enemies, e.g. people who hate the West; in short, the new
Bin Ladens.
To summarise, if we want to rid the world of nuclear
weapons:
1) Western cosmology (or civilisation, culture)
must be addressed as deeply determining for the
development of nuclearism. We all need a deeper
understanding of the mechanisms and deep-rooted
assumptions that make nuclear weapons look natural and
legitimate (at least to those who have them).
2) Secondly, it will be necessary to open up
Western culture to other cultural influences that
are, in and of themselves, less conducive to nuclearism,
be it Gandhian, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist or other kinds of
thinking. Particularly after September 11, 2001, we
should try to strengthen the 'soft' peace-promoting
aspects of all religions and the dialogue among them.
World unity in diversity, not uniformity, is desirable.
The very existence of nuclear weapons is a gross negation
of diversity.
3) Further, there is a need to discuss and develop
a set of truly global ethical norms that are not based on
the local neighbourhood ethics we are used to
running. So far globalisation has been military and
economic, while cultural, ethical and political
globalisation is lagging ever more behind. Western
citizens and their governments have to develop less
anthropocentric worldviews and become more humble and
caring about the future for all humanity because we have
so much technological power, as some would say more than
the human race is mature enough to handle.
4) To rid the world of nuclear and other weapons, we
have to attack the self-created, pathological enemy
images and threat assessments. There is a great need
to actualise, in pedagogical manners, the huge arsenals
of non-violent conflict-resolution and the values of
mutuality, co-existence, unity in diversity, tolerance,
reconciliation and forgiveness - to make the soft power
stronger and make the hard power weaker. The next step is
to present the alternatives to decision-makers
saying something like, " if you pursue these different
policies based on these different norms and concepts you
are likely to create fewer enemies and win more friends
in the future - in short, be more safe." (Some examples
follow).
5) Finally, to learn to live without the bomb, we need
a better balance between male and female thinking and
understanding of life and politics. And more women in
decision-making structures.
This leads us to the second major question raised in
the introduction: how to envision a far better,
nuclear-free world?
Towards a vision of a nuclear-free world
George Bernhard Shaw has said that most people look at
the world as it is and ask: why? - but what we ought to
do is to look at the world as it could be and ask: why
not? I believe this is essential; we need to develop
images of a nuclear-free world to help people overcome
the sense of powerlessness as well as overcome the
obstacles mentioned above. Admittedly it is a tall order,
but it has to be done by those who see the need for
change; those who benefit from the nuclear system in
particular and the military system in general cannot be
expected to develop alternatives to them. While some
people may concentrate on some alternative visions and
strategies, others may brainstorm and advocate other
changes. In the rest of this exposé, I shall focus
on only a few, fully aware that there are so many other
equally important aspects and themes.
1. Globalisation must now reach the fields of
politics, NGO activities, ethics, peace-making
etc.
By globalisation we mean here a truly global dialogue and
exchange. Even future-thinking NGOs are often
surprisingly 'provincial' thinking that if they have a
national network or a European platform that will do. It
will not. The economic and military globalisers truly see
the world as one system, as one field of operation. They
are more visionary in that sense than most alternative
forces. Disarmament and de-nuclearisation must be
globalised via Internet, e-mail, travels and exchanges at
all levels. Meetings, dialogues and peace work in which
only one culture, one civilisation or one religion is
represented will be increasingly irrelevant.
2. Top priority: Westerners must learn from others,
receive spiritual and other "development aid" from
non-Westerners, humbly learning rather than merely
teaching.
Teaching others (or teaching them lessons) and believing
that the West is # 1 is a serious disease found among
Western governments as well as many columnists, experts,
alternativists and NGOs. So Westerners should ask others:
how do you think we can get rid of nuclear weapons and
the war system, what is your philosophy about peace and
world order and can you help us?
3. Non-violence must be taught and learned across
the change community. It means studying the classics and
the contemporary cases where non-violence has played a
historical role.
The present tendency of alternativists to accept warfare,
national military defence, humanitarian intervention,
bombings here and there is an implicit support to the
nuclear system.
For instance, there is far too little debate (and
resistance) among intellectuals throughout the Eastern
European system (and among Western NGOs assisting them)
about membership in the nuclear-based NATO alliance and
the nuclear-related European Union. It is an implicit
endorsement of violent conflict-resolution which, in its
turn, legitimates more nuclear weapons and
militarism.
4. A new emphasis must be placed on non-violent
conflict-resolution, on preventive diplomacy and
violence-preventive (not conflict-preventive) policies
and strategies. It must happen on the individual, the
small-group level, the national, regional and the
inter-national and the global level.
That in its turn means new education. Peacemaking by
peaceful means (the UN Charter norm) requires
professional education in the school system, in
vocational training, in NGO communities and educational
settings, in national peace academies and throughout the
international organisation system, such as in the OSCE
and the UN. It takes at least as much education to learn
to mitigate and solve conflict with as little violence as
possible as it does to learn to fight wars.
5. It is of utmost importance for democracy and
pluralistic debate that NGO continues to stand for
Non-Governmental and does not come to denote
Near-Governmental.
The more state-finance NGOs (and e.g. peace research)
obtain, the greater the likelihood that they stop being
alternatives to government politics, including nuclear
and other military policies.
6. Public education about proportions and
allocations of means in this world.
We should intensify the dissemination of information
concerning the general citizenry everywhere about the
allocations to the military and to repressive systems and
how much good could be done in the world if these
priorities were changed. This means also helping the
media to make a more relevant coverage of world affairs.
Over the last 25 years of lecturing and teaching in
different parts of the world, I've been surprised how
unknown these proportions still are even to the socially
concerned - as is, by the way, the UN Charter. It is
difficult to imagine that people find it acceptable that
75,000 to 100,000 die unnecessarily every day from lack
of food, water, shelter, sanitation etc (not from war)
while the world's most privileged governments pour even
more billions into 'security.' But how many actually know
these facts? And how many feels powerless when they hear
them? Neither, I am sure, do they find it acceptable that
world military expenditures equal the income of the 49%
poorest people on earth. The question we must address is:
why is there not a mass protest, a mass willingness to
change, an outrage and a cry for 'enough is enough'? Is
there a deficit in awareness, in empowerment or in
democracy as we know it?
7. Central to policies for a nuclear-free world are
answers to the question: how can we learn to solve
perfectly natural conflicts world wide with as little
violence as possible and certainly without the use of
mass-destructive weapons?
People everywhere must be given a chance to learn as
much about conflicts and conflict-resolution as they do
about, say, computers. We talk about ordinary illiteracy
and IT illiteracy, but most of us are conflict
illiterates.
Perhaps leaders should not become leaders before they
have something like a driving license for
conflict-management? We build safer cars and roads, we
only issue driving licenses to people who have studied
theory, know the traffic signs and have practised behind
the wheel. Why? To reduce human suffering and the costs
of accidents. This idea should be emulated when it comes
to conflicts in our world. No leader would never send
young boys with no military training into war, but
governments and other actors carelessly send military,
diplomats, lawyers, former ministers, etc out as
mediators and 'conflict-managers' to conflict regions
without as much as a weekend course in
conflict-understanding psychology or mediation. Of course
it must go wrong - and when conflict-resolution goes
wrong, violence takes over and the internationals blame
the local parties.
But violence comes when conflicts are deliberately
provoked or ignored or wrongly treated. It comes when one
sees no way out. Creative intervention with non-violent
means can help avoid the tunnel vision that violence and
wars are based on.
8. The UN Charter remains the best single document
for global peace-making.
The UN is in obvious need of substantial reforms, but if
more member states and decision-makers would just honour
the letter and spirit of the UN Charter, the world would
undoubtedly be a much more humane place than it is. It is
time we really take it seriously and allocate the most
competent people and much more funds to the UN and its
family. The UN is the sum total of what its members make
of it. When they speak warmly for nuclear abolition in
the General Assembly and continue to develop nuclear
systems at home, they make the world a less safe place
and undermine the normative importance of the United
Nations. Regional organisations as well as thousands of
NGOs can contribute to the UN norm of peace by peaceful
means and apply this principle to problem-solving in
fields such as the environment, peace, women's issues,
globalisation. And they could do more to honour this
principle that is the case today.
9. Ideas and norms are at least as important as
organisational matters.
Each human being is a potential movement for change,
including nuclear abolition. Anyone who has learned
something can help others understand. The idea that big
governmental and non-governmental organisations with
multi-million dollar budgets are the only ones who can
bring about change is utterly misleading and self-serving
for exactly those organisations. It is true that we need
wider co-operation because problems cross borders in an
increasingly globalising world, but it does not follow
that we are best helped by ever bigger units. Bigger
organisations are often characterised by low levels of
creativity and flexibility as well as political
correctness because of dependence on government funds.
And the bigger the organisation, the more power at the
top and, thus, the more energy devoted to power
struggles.
10. We need alternative defence and
security.
We need defensive defence structures, only operable if a
member of the international system - be it a province, a
country or a region - is attacked. Long range forces with
devastating destructive power (offensive defence) should
become a thing of the past, since they are meant to be
used only outside of one's own territory. The ideas that
each country or region can keep offensive forces and
credibly maintain that it has only defensive motives
should again be a thing of the past. There are many ways
to envision it but a combination defence of a) defensive
military, b) civil, economic and structural preparation
(against embargos, terror, economic crisis), c) a minimum
level of self-reliance in case one should be cut off and
civil protection, d) civil resistance and e) non-violent
struggle are all highly relevant elements.
In a democracy some citizens may want to carry
weapons, some want to help secure their society in purely
civilian ways; modern defence should be responsive to
both categories. But not to the wish of carrying any type
of weapons: the offensive conventional and the
mass-destructive weapons should be phased out a priori.
Modern defence and security also implies training many
young women and men in international non-violent service,
mediation, reconciliation and reconstruction.
Governments and NGOs can decide also to establish
"conflict consortiums" in each country consisting of area
experts and conflict-resolution experts, NGOs and
ministerial staff who would engage in conflicts around
the world before they flare up, in short practising early
warning and early listening and early action. The only
thing nobody needs is the authoritarian
"you-have-no-choice-but-NATO-membership" and exclusively
military defence technically capable of offence. It goes
against democracy and it goes against the simple fact
that different peoples and different cultures face
different security challenges and thus cannot all be fed
the same standard solution imposed by Western power.
We have touched upon a series of themes and
initiatives for the future: multi-cultural dialogue and
mutual learning, basic nonviolence, public education and
education in conflict-management, global norms and the
importance of the UN Charter's provisions, global
conflict-management that promotes violence-prevention and
violence-reduction and, finally, alternative
multi-layered defence compatible with genuine
democracy.
If a development took place in this direction
grosso modo, the 'need' for nuclear weapons and other
violent means would be reduced. The only way I can
see us moving in that direction is dialogue, dialogue and
more dialogue. And it should revolve around "the four
"Cs": coalition-building, constructivism, creativity and
concrete visions of more humane, just and peaceful
societies.
We need to throw off the fear that tells us
that change is more dangerous than continuing with the
present policies. Instead we need the hope and the
vision that democracy, justice, development and
peace means freedom from nuclearism and reduction of
violence to zero. It can be done in many ways and the
above elements can be combined in thousands of ways.
There will never be one concept of world peace but only
many smaller 'peaces' that make up a global unity in
diversity.
Hopefully, we shall never see the thesis confirmed
that there has to be a nuclear accident or war before
people get together and act. Let's begin now and work
with a deep conviction that there is common sense and an
empowering democracy through which nuclear abolition can
be achieved. Until we have tried much more intensely, we
do not know that it is impossible.
©
TFF & the author 2002
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|