Getting to Zero
August 6, 2008
Today marks the 63rd anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. It was the first of two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and has become one of the symbols marking the end of the Second World War. While the anniversary sparks controversy about whether the bombings were necessary or not, on August 6 and August 9, 1945, the world definitively learned of the horrors of using the atomic bomb. Maybe the revelation of those horrors helped to establish a precedent against using them in crises, at least up until now. But there are no guarantees that this precedence will hold or that accidents won’t happen.
I had the pleasure of speaking with famed Cold War strategist and Nobel Prize winner Thomas Shelling a few months ago about the bombing of Hiroshima and its impact on the Cold War. Shelling believed that the leaders of the United States and Soviet Union did not want a repeat of the horrors suffered by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and this influenced their decision making ability about using nuclear weapons in times of crisis. Nuclear weapons turned from just another weapons system, to an instrument of unspeakable death and destruction. American Presidents and Soviet Premiers throughout the Cold War did not want to be responsible for that much death and destruction, and grew very hesitant about using nuclear weapons.
The precedent against using the bomb by leaders of both the United States and Soviet Union helped establish the worldwide so-called “nuclear taboo,” or movement away from using nuclear weapons in a crisis. The “nuclear taboo” slowly grew in popularity over the Cold War to the point where if a country would use nuclear weapons on another, it would be shunned by the international community. The “taboo” continues to today, as any use of nuclear weapons would immediately lead to worldwide condemnation.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to be remembered for the horror that the atomic bomb brought, but their memories should not be in vain. The world needs to remember the destruction and images of the two attacks in order for others not to cross the threshold and use nuclear weapons. Those graphic images remind the world of the destructive nature of nuclear weapons, and should serve as a motivator for people to strive to eliminate them. No nation, ethnic group, or city should ever experience the same fate as the citizens in those two Japanese cities.
In order to properly remember and ensure the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not die in vain, we, as citizens of the world, must work toward getting to zero nuclear weapons to make sure these weapons are never used again. The total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only way to completely make sure that Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain the only cities destroyed by these weapons. We need to mourn the losses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Remembering the bombings also provides us with the opportunity to say, “Never again.”
-Phil Maxon, BASIC
August 1, 2008
In an op-ed published on 24 July 2008 on Il Corriere della Sera, Gianfranco Fini, Massimo D ‘Alema, Giorgio La Malfa, Arturo Parisi and Francesco Calogero called for Italy and Europe to make their contribution to the propagation of new ‘shared vision’ and pave the way toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. ‘Man’s very survival’ reads the article ‘…depends on acknowledgement of a superior and common interest in this matter’. Two of the authors are close to the current President Silvio Berlusconi.
Italy ratified the NPT in 1975, yet hosts on its territory American Nuclear Weapons – unspecified in number and location - and participates in NATO Nuclear Sharing.
On 27 March 2008 a Draft Bill to make Italy a “Nuclear Weapons Free Zone” was presented to the Lower Chamber of the Italian Parliament, proposing to make Italian territorial waters free from nuclear weapons, and banning the transit of ships or submarines carrying nuclear warheads. Article 1 gives the Government 60 days (from the deposit) to initiate the process. The bill is now under the examination of the III Commission for Foreign Affairs of which Giorgio la Malfa, Arturo Parisi and Massimo D’Alema are members.
Laura Spagnuolo, BASIC in London
July 30, 2008
William Hague, the UK Shadow Foreign Secretary, last week gave an address at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) on how the UK government should move forward in both preventing nuclear proliferation and encouraging nuclear disarmament, in order to help realise the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. A copy of the speech can be found here.
By all accounts a welcome addition to the growing tide of international statesmen that support the GTZ vision, Hague’s proposals demonstrate both the practical steps necessary to bring the movement forward and the potential trouble-zones in the future. It is pleasing that Hague stresses the urgency of the situation and the need for concerted action sooner rather than later. Furthermore, Hague would like to re-open the debate to those states that have historically been ignored, including developed countries that have decided against pursuing a nuclear-weapons programme such as Japan and Brazil. Hague is correct in believing the NPT has had a crucial influence in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, and that the credibility and survivability of the treaty should not be threatened. Furthermore, he rightly argues that the NPT should be flexible and updated from the original 1968 agreement to match today’s geopolitical and security environment.
However, there are certain aspects of his speech that are unlikely to be popular within the international community or that could prove to be unworkable. For example, his insistence that any response to a state violating the NPT should come from the UN Security Council ignores the recent success of regional initiatives, such as the Six Party Talks in dealing with North Korea’s weapons programme. Furthermore, immediately handing control to the Security Council, and the Permanent Five, will continue the widely-felt perception that those with nuclear-weapons dictate to those without. In addition, the Council is not one unanimous voice – an immediate referral will not necessarily lead to an immediate response.
Hague argues that Britain should not engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament as it would not encourage other states to abandon their nuclear-weapons ambitions. Instead non-proliferation efforts should be strengthened, before large-scale disarmament can occur. This is however a continuation of an increasingly unpopular status quo – for many states without nuclear weapons, the lack of progress in the disarmament pillar of the NPT is undermining confidence in the treaty and indirectly leading to proliferation.
Despite the caveats to some of his arguments, Hague speech represents a welcome addition to the debate. Moreover, it is highly encouraging that there appears to be significant agreement between the two major British political parties, and that together they could ensure movement in the right direction irrespective of which party is currently in power. A more detailed analysis of Hague’s speech, with a brief summary of his main points and arguments can be found here.
Jamie Wheeler, BASIC
July 28, 2008
In a series of speeches over the past two weeks, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama pledged to strive toward a world free of nuclear weapons. In three speeches, he outlined his views on getting to zero. He had hinted at declaring support for a nuclear free world before, but with his speeches on July 15, 16, and the 24, he officially pledged to move the country toward getting to zero.
Barack Obama’s speech on July 15, entitled, “A New Strategy for a New World” focused on Iraq, Afghanistan, and securing loose nuclear material. As part of his proposed foreign policy, Senator Obama said that the United States should lead the world toward eventual and complete nuclear disarmament. Specifically, he stated:
America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.
It was the first time either candidate pledged to totally eliminate nuclear weapons. John McCain pledged to drastically reduce the U.S. stockpile, but not to completely eliminate it. The next day Obama hosted a roundtable discussion at Purdue University on “Confronting New Threats” and, in his remarks again pledged to move America toward a nuclear-free world. He added:
We’ll negotiate with Russia to achieve deep reductions in both our nuclear arsenals and we’ll work with other nuclear powers to reduce global stockpiles dramatically. And we’ll work with the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] and then seek its earliest possible entry into force.
Finally, in his most recent speech, given July 24, in Berlin, Obama called on the world to unite and move to achieve the goal of getting to zero. In his speech to over 200,000 people in Berlin, Germany, he stated:
This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama’s speeches prove that the goal of getting to zero is taking hold in the political arena, and also reveal the there is a growing awareness of the necessary steps to reach this goal. The United States must work with Russia to renegotiate a new arms reduction treaty, and de-alert U.S. and Russian missiles. The United States should move toward ratifying the CTBT, and work toward a global ban on the production of fissile material.
But, words alone are not enough. Hopefully the declarations made by Obama help getting to zero gain more momentum in the U.S. Presidential campaign, so that no matter who is elected as the next President, getting to zero will become a policy priority. We still have a long way to go, but Obama’s declarations bring us closer to achieving the goal.
Philip Maxon, BASIC
July 15, 2008
The supposedly dead U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Deal resurrected itself during the first week of July. It seemed all but certain that the deal would die in the Indian Parliament, due to the Communist Party’s resistance to the agreement. However, Prime Minister Singh changed his strategy and instead courted the Samajwadi Party to support the deal, thus keeping his majority-and allowing the agreement to pass the Indian Parliament.
The agreement, signed in 2005 and passed by the U.S. Congress under the Hyde Act in 2006, allows for the United States to transfer nuclear technology and fuel to India, reversing decades of past policy. With the passage in the Indian Parliament, the deal now moves to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who will sign off on safeguards for some of India’s nuclear facilities in August. Next, the deal must be approved by the 45 member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an organization which supervises any direct transfer of nuclear fuel or technology between states. After possible approval from both the IAEA and the NSG, the agreement would come back to the U.S. Congress for final approval. If the deal makes it to Congress, there is no guarantee that it would be passed in a floor vote because election season is fast approaching and there is already much on the agenda for Congress.
While President Bush and Prime Minister Singh tout the deal as a breakthrough for helping India meet surmounting energy demands, what will the deal mean for nuclear non-proliferation and the grand bargain of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)? The agreement would give India nuclear weapons status, and essentially rewards them for detonating nuclear devices in 1998. In addition, the agreement does not require India to sign the 1968 NPT, the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), cease production of nuclear weapons, or require that all of their facilities be under IAEA safeguards. The agreement also fails to include language stipulating that the deal would become null and void if India tests a nuclear weapon.
Therefore, in terms of nonproliferation and getting to zero, the agreement falls short; it does not limit India’s nuclear weapons capabilities, and may even enhance their weapons program because it will free up fuel for weapons– fuel that otherwise would have gone toward India’s nuclear energy program.
Rather than addressing the negative security ramifications of the agreement, the United States is framing the deal as the best option for strengthening the strategic partnership between the two countries. President Bush, speaking at the G-8 Summit said that:
“I think it’s very important that the United States continues to work with our friend to develop not only a new strategic relationship, but a relationship that addresses some of the world’s problems. We talked about the India-U.S. nuclear deal — how important that is for our respective countries.”
While trying to sure up strategic ties to the United States, India recently issued a declaration during a conference in New Delhi last month entitled, Towards a World Free of Nuclear Weapons. Prime Minister Singh called for a Nuclear Weapons Convention and announced that he had submitted a Working Paper on Nuclear Disarmament to the United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. In particular, he outlined six measures to work toward eventual nuclear disarmament. However, President Bush did not express support for the idea during his speech at the G-8, which further weakens India’s position on disarmament.
If the United States is serious about strengthening the nonproliferation regime, then it should understand that the current agreement with India runs counter to this goal. India’s attempt to move toward global disarmament is to be commended, but it needs to be started within the current nonproliferation structure, which the U.S.-India Agreement weakens. While the agreement may be labeled as a mechanism to strengthen the relationship between the two countries, there must be better ways to do this –ways that do not undermine previous and existing U.S. efforts to support the NPT.
Philip Maxon, BASIC
Next Page »
|
