|
NUCLEAR
DISARMAMENT IN A TIME OF GLOBALIZATION
By
David
Krieger
President, Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation
TFF
associate
August 16, 2004
Nuclear weapons occupy the highest
rung on the ladder of military cowardice. They are
long-distance devices of mass annihilation. They destroy
indiscriminately &endash; men, women and children. They
draw no lines between soldiers and civilians. Those who
make the weapons, who deploy them, who order their use
and who press the buttons to send the missiles on their
way have virtually no connection with the victims. They
are simply human instruments in a chain of activities
leading to massive devastation.
The only arguably sane use of
nuclear weapons is deterrence, and deterrence is largely
an unproven theory. General George Lee Butler, a former
commander-in-chief of the United States Strategic
Command, who was in charge of all US nuclear weapons, has
expressed his deep concerns about deterrence. "Nuclear
deterrence," he wrote, "was and remains a slippery
intellectual construct that translates very poorly into
the real world of spontaneous crises, inexplicable
motivations, incomplete intelligence and fragile human
relationships." When one examines carefully the
shortcomings of nuclear deterrence &endash; its
requirements of near-perfect communications, rational
behavior in a time of crisis and willingness to commit
mass murder &endash; it is reasonable to conclude that
reliance on nuclear deterrence for security is as insane
as the threat to destroy civilization with nuclear
weapons.
In recent times, there has been a
high degree of concern for nuclear terrorism, but nuclear
terrorism has been practiced by the nuclear weapons
states for decades. If terrorism is the threat or use of
violence to achieve political goals &endash; especially
if it results in injuring or killing innocent people
&endash; then the nuclear weapons states are by
definition terrorists. It is ironic that nuclear weapons
are more potent tools in the hands of non-state actors
than in the hands of powerful countries. Non-state actors
in possession of a nuclear weapon would not be
constrained by threats of retaliation. If terrorists are
suicidal and cannot be located anyway, they certainly
cannot be deterred from initiating a nuclear attack. In
this sense, nuclear weapons are a great equalizer in the
hands of extremists, and for this reason it is clear that
the nuclear weapons states must do everything in their
power to prevent these weapons, or the materials to make
them, from falling into the hands of such extremists. The
nuclear weapons states, however, appear more committed to
maintaining their own nuclear arsenals than to assuring
that nuclear weapons do not proliferate to non-state
terrorist groups that could cause them irreparable
harm.
The only way to assure that nuclear
weapons do not fall into the hands of terrorist groups
like Al Qaeda is to take dramatic steps to reduce nuclear
arsenals, dismantle the nuclear weapons, and place the
remaining weapons and weapons-grade fissile materials
under strict and effective international controls. The
nuclear weapons states have not been bold in attempting
to control the spread of nuclear weapons; they have acted
as though time is on their side rather than on the side
of those committed to waging war against them. The irony
of this is that the nuclear weapons states, even with
arsenals of nuclear weapons that number in the thousands,
cannot deter a group such as Al Qaeda from using nuclear
weapons against them. Their only hope is to prevent such
groups from obtaining these most destructive of all
weapons.
Nuclearism and
Globalization
Nuclearism is one of the early
manifestations of globalization. The United States went
global with its nuclear threat almost from the day it
first created nuclear weapons. Within three weeks of
testing the first nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, the US
used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It did so
not only to destroy those cities and punish Japan, but
also to send a message to the world and particularly to
the Soviet Union. The message was, "This is what we are
capable of doing and willing to do with our devastating
new weapons; don't cross us or we could use them on you."
It was a powerful message, and also an incentive to
nuclear proliferation. It would take the Soviet Union
just four years to test its first nuclear
device.
Very early in the Nuclear Age, the
US began testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific,
including in the Trust Territories that had been assigned
to it by the United Nations. In doing so, it continued
the pre-war pattern of colonial dominance. Over the
decades of the Nuclear Age, all of the nuclear weapons
states have performed their nuclear testing on the lands
of indigenous peoples, leaving the hazardous radioactive
residue of testing in their backyards.
Another dimension to the
globalization of the nuclear threat was the development
of inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), allowing
for the destruction of nearly any place on the globe in
30 minutes or many places simultaneously. Even today, the
US and Russia each still have some 6,000 deployed
strategic nuclear weapons. Of these, some 2,250 each are
on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in
moments.
The US and USSR, now Russia, as
well as other nuclear weapons states, also appropriated
the global commons for their nuclear forces. The nuclear
weapons states continue to use the oceans, humankind's
great common heritage, for their submarine-launched
nuclear forces. They agreed not to place nuclear weapons
on the ocean floor, but with the availability of
submarines, the ocean floor is clearly not a necessary or
even useful option for them.
Another aspect of the globalization
of nuclearism is the spread of the US nuclear umbrella to
its allies throughout the world, particularly in Europe,
Asia and the Pacific. By extending its nuclear umbrella,
the US has made many more countries complicit in relying
upon nuclear weapons for their security, albeit reliant
upon US nuclear weapons rather than developing their
own.
Nuclear
Proliferation
Nuclear proliferation is the
flip-side of nuclear disarmament. It is also the
globalization of nuclear arsenals. The existing nuclear
weapons states have nearly all justified their
development of nuclear weapons on the basis of nuclear
deterrence. The US created nuclear weapons because it was
concerned about deterring a possible Nazi nuclear bomb.
The Soviet Union developed its nuclear arsenal to deter
the US. The UK and France developed their nuclear
arsenals to have independent deterrent forces against the
Soviet Union. China sought to deter both the Soviet Union
and the US. India sought to deter China, and Pakistan
sought to deter India. North Korea would undoubtedly
justify its nuclear weapons, if indeed it has them, as
being necessary to deter the US. South Africa, which
faced global hostility due to its policies of Apartheid,
developed a nuclear arsenal to deter the US and Russia.
It subsequently gave up its nuclear weapons. Israel,
which continues to face both regional and global
hostility, developed a nuclear arsenal to give it greater
degrees of freedom in relation to the US and Russia and
well as to deter hostilities by non-nuclear weapons
states in its region.
The US-led war against Iraq was
justified initially on the basis that Iraq might be
developing a nuclear arsenal and could potentially
transfer nuclear weapons to terrorist groups such as Al
Qaeda. Although it turned out not to be true that Iraq
was developing a nuclear arsenal or even that it had
links to Al Qaeda, this fear provided the justification
for the first counter-proliferation war in
history.
US Double
Standards Have Stimulated Proliferation
From the outset of the Nuclear Age,
the US has had a double standard when it comes to nuclear
weapons. It has always relied on these weapons for its
own security, yet sought to deny these weapons to other
states except when it suited its purposes. In the late
1960s and early 1970s, Israel developed a nuclear
arsenal. At best it can be said that the US turned a
blind eye to this development. In sharp contrast to the
US attacking and invading Iraq because it might have
nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, the US, in
line with its geopolitical strategies, has never even
criticized Israel for its nuclear proliferation. This
double standard has created an impetus to the
proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass
destruction in the volatile Middle East.
India's position, for decades, was
that it would not develop nuclear weapons if the nuclear
weapons states fulfilled their obligations under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to achieve nuclear
disarmament. India made clear pronouncements that it was
not willing to live without nuclear weapons in a world of
nuclear "haves" and "have-nots". Three years after the
NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995 and there was still
no significant breakthrough by the nuclear weapons states
toward achieving nuclear disarmament, India conducted a
series of nuclear weapons tests and announced that it was
developing a nuclear arsenal. Pakistan followed
immediately in doing the same.
When Mr. Bush named Iraq, Iran and
North Korea as part of an Axis of Evil, he put these
states on notice that they were in the sights of the US.
When he then went on to attack and invade Iraq to
overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, Bush's actions
sent a message to Iran and North Korea, among others,
that they had better consider developing a nuclear
deterrent force against the US. They may have already had
such thoughts before the Axis of Evil speech, but there
can be no doubt that such provocative language, coupled
with military action, can only act as a stimulant to
develop a strong deterrent force. The Bush posture toward
the states designated as an Axis of Evil stands in strong
contrast to the manner in which his administration
virtually ignored the nuclear proliferation activities of
Pakistani nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan. Khan, whose
activities have been described as a nuclear Walmart,
received only a slap on the wrist from the Pakistani
government, allied with the US in the so-called war
against terrorism.
Nuclear
Disarmament
In the post-Cold War period, there
has been some progress toward nuclear disarmament, but it
has been excruciatingly slow as measured by the need,
obligation and opportunity. Current global nuclear stocks
are down from a Cold War high of some 70,000 nuclear
weapons to approximately 30,000. The vast majority of
these, some 97 percent, are in the arsenals of the US and
Russia.
The need to dramatically reduce and
eliminate nuclear weapons lies in the danger of these
weapons proliferating to other states or falling into the
hands of non-state extremist actors. The enormous danger
of these weapons in the hands of groups like Al Qaeda
should be sufficient to motivate serious efforts to
achieve nuclear disarmament. So far it has not done so.
The need does not exist to maintain large nuclear
arsenals or, for that matter, any nuclear weapons in a
world where nuclear weapons states are trading with each
other rather than threatening war.
The obligation of the nuclear
weapons states to achieve nuclear disarmament is set
forth in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. At the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference,
when the treaty was extended indefinitely, the parties
agreed to "systematic and progressive efforts to reduce
nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of
eliminating those weapons." Five years later, at the 2000
NPT Review Conference, the parties agreed on 13 Practical
Steps for Nuclear Disarmament. These steps included
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty,
preserving and strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, making disarmament measures irreversible, and an
"unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to
accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear
arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all
States parties are committed under Article
VI."
The opportunity to achieve nuclear
disarmament in the post-Cold War world has been largely
squandered. Bill Clinton was presented with the greatest
opportunity of any leader in the post-World War II period
to put an end to the dangers of the Nuclear Age. Clinton
didn't seem to grasp the opportunity that had been laid
at his feet. He was largely indifferent to the issue, and
this resulted in only minimal progress during his eight
years in office. He did, however, support ratification of
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and did hold
negotiations with Russia on START III, but these
negotiations did not result in a new treaty.
If the Clinton approach to nuclear
disarmament can be described as benign indifference, the
US under the Bush administration can be thought of
obstructionist in its approach to nuclear disarmament. It
has been an obstacle to virtually all of the 13 Practical
Steps agreed to at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty
Review Conference. The Bush administration has opposed
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, put up
barriers to negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut-Off
Treaty, pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
(in order to pursue missile defenses and space
weaponization), and entered into an agreement with the
Russians that makes nuclear reductions completely
reversible. This agreement, the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Agreement (SORT), specifies reductions of the
US and Russian deployed strategic arsenals from levels of
about 6,000 each to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by the
year 2012. However, the treaty doesn't require that the
weapons taken off deployed status be irreversibly
dismantled. As a result, many US weapons will go into
storage and be available for redeployment in the future.
It is likely that the Russians will do the same, and
these weapons will also be available for possible theft
by terrorist groups. The reductions do not have a
timeline and only need to be completed by 2012. After
that year, the treaty will no longer be in effect. So far
as it impacts nuclear disarmament, the treaty is largely
fraudulent. It gives the appearance of disarmament, but
the substance isn't there.
In addition, the Bush
administration has been pressing for research on new
nuclear weapons that will be more usable, a new bunker
busting nuclear weapon (the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator) and mini-nukes (low-yield nuclear weapons)
that are about one-third the yield of the Hiroshima bomb.
They have also begun deployment of missile defenses that
have led Russia to pull out of the START II agreement.
Despite their funding of research on new nuclear weapons
and their opposition to the 13 Practical Steps, a US
delegate to the 2004 Preparatory Committee meeting for
the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, John
Bolton, told the assembled parties to the treaty that
they shouldn't focus their attention on Article VI of the
treaty with its nuclear disarmament provisions. "We
cannot divert attention from the violations we face," he
said, "by focusing on Article VI violations that do not
exist."
Need for US
Leadership
The world currently faces a tragic
dilemma: preventing nuclear terrorism requires
significant nuclear disarmament and international control
of nuclear weapons and materials, but to achieve this
will require US leadership, which is currently
non-existent. Since the US continues to rely upon its own
arsenal of nuclear weapons for security, it cannot
effectively provide leadership toward nuclear
disarmament. In the Bush administration's secret, but
leaked, 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, they stated:
"Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense
capabilities of the United States, its allies and
friends. They provide credible options to deter a wide
range of threats, including WMD [weapons of mass
destruction] and large-scale conventional force.
These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that
give the United States options to hold at risk classes of
targets [that are] important to achieve strategic
and political objectives."
Initiatives for
Nuclear Disarmament
At the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation, we are initiating a campaign to chart a new
course in US nuclear policy that we call Turn the Tide.
It is an Internet-based campaign that seeks to awaken US
citizens to the need to change US nuclear policy and spur
them to communicate with their Congressional
representatives and candidates as well as the president
and presidential candidates and to cast their ballots
based on positions on nuclear disarmament issues. The
campaign is based on the following call to
action:
1. Stop all efforts to create
dangerous new nuclear weapons and delivery
systems.
2. Maintain the current moratorium
on nuclear testing and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty.
3. Cancel plans to build new
nuclear weapons production plants, and close and clean up
the toxic contamination at existing plants.
4. Establish and enforce a legally
binding US commitment to No Use of nuclear weapons
against any nation or group that does not have nuclear
weapons.
5. Establish and enforce a legally
binding US commitment to No First Use of nuclear weapons
against other nations possessing nuclear
weapons.
6. Cancel funding for and plans to
deploy offensive missile "defense" systems which would
ignite a dangerous arms race and offer no security
against terrorist weapons of mass destruction.
7. In order to significantly
decrease the threat of accidental launch, together with
Russia, take nuclear weapons off high-alert status and do
away with the strategy of launch-on-warning.
8. Together with Russia, implement
permanent and verifiable dismantlement of nuclear weapons
taken off deployed status through the 2002 Strategic
Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).
9. Demonstrate to other countries
US commitment to reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons
by removing all US nuclear weapons from foreign
soil.
10. To prevent future proliferation
or theft, create and maintain a global inventory of
nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials and place
these weapons and materials under strict international
safeguards.
11. Initiate international
negotiations to fulfill existing treaty obligations under
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for the phased and
verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons.
12. Redirect funding from nuclear
weapons programs to dismantling nuclear weapons,
safeguarding nuclear materials, cleaning up the toxic
legacy of the Nuclear Age and meeting more pressing
social needs such as education, health care and social
services.
While this campaign is essential,
it is a strategy from within the country. It is also
necessary to bring pressure to bear on the US and other
nuclear weapons states from the international community.
The countries of the New Agenda Coalition (Brazil, Egypt,
Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden)
have been doing admirable work on this at the United
Nations and at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review
Conferences and Preparatory Committee meetings. These
countries were largely responsible for putting forward
the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to
at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. I should also mention
the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of eight
international non-governmental organizations, which has
provided strong support and encouragement to the New
Agenda countries.
Another important new initiative to
move forward the nuclear disarmament agenda is the
Emergency Campaign of the Mayors for Peace. Under the
leadership of the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this
campaign has set forth a Vision 2020, calling for the
initiation of negotiations for complete nuclear
disarmament in 2005, the completion of these negotiations
in 2010 and the elimination of nuclear weapons by the
year 2020.
Breaking the
Silence
Nuclear weapons pose a threat to
humanity's future, and yet most of us are silent in the
face of this danger. It would not be possible to
research, develop, deploy, threaten and use nuclear
weapons if so many were not silent. The threat of nuclear
genocide, even omnicide, has become global. Before the
spread of the weapons themselves becomes global, we must
break the culture of silence and conformity that allows
the continuation of the nuclear threat to all
humanity.
In some ways, we have attributed
god-like characteristics to nuclear weapons. Their power
far exceeds that of ordinary weapons. They are credited
in the US with bringing World War II to an end. It is
hard to forget the emotional celebrations that took place
in the streets in India and Pakistan when they tested
nuclear weapons in 1998. Here is a poem in which I have
tried to capture the sense of the godliness that has been
ascribed to nuclear weapons by many people in the nuclear
weapons states.
WHEN THE BOMB
BECAME OUR GOD
When the bomb became our
god
We loved it far too
much,
Worshipping no other gods before
it.
We thought ourselves
great
And powerful, creators of
worlds.
We turned toward
infinity,
Giving the bomb our very
souls.
We looked to it for
comfort,
To its smooth metallic
grace.
When the bomb became our
god
We lived in a constant state of
war
That we called peace.
But nuclear weapons certainly are
not gods, nor are their possessors. These weapons are
false idols, and they threaten their possessors as well
as their targets. They may be powerful, but their power
is only that of destruction. They have neither the power
of creativity nor of construction. They threaten the
future of humanity, and they corrode the souls of their
possessors.
We are approaching the 60th
anniversary of the creation and first use of nuclear
weapons. Time is not on our side, and we can take little
comfort in the fact that nuclear weapons have not been
dropped on other cities since they were used at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. In this era of globalization, the threat of
nuclear annihilation is itself global. To counter this
threat, we must globalize prohibitions in law and
morality to the possession, threat and use of the nuclear
weapons. We must end the double standards that suggest
that some may have nuclear weapons while others may not.
There are no safe hands in which nuclear weapons may be
placed.
The singular threat that nuclear
weapons pose can only be ended by people everywhere
breaking the silence and demanding that the nuclear
weapons states fulfill their obligations under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty for the total elimination of
these weapons, and persisting in their demands until the
goal is achieved.
David Krieger is the president of
the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation http://www.wagingpeace.org
He is the author of many books and
articles on peace in the Nuclear Age.
©
TFF & the author 2004
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|