Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Threat

  • The Frog’s Malaise: Nuclear Weapons and Human Survival

    If a frog is dropped into a pot of scalding water, it will sense the danger and immediately jump out. However, if a frog is dropped into a pot of tepid water and the water temperature is gradually raised, the frog will succumb rather than trying to escape.

    We humans are like the frog in this story. At the onset of the Nuclear Age we were dropped into a pot of tepid water and here we sit as the temperature of the water rises. ******

    “We cannot bear the thought that human life can disappear from this planet, least of all, by the action of man. And yet the impossible, the unimaginable, has now become possible. The future existence of the human species can no longer be guaranteed. The human species is now an endangered species.” -Sir Joseph Rotblat

    “Nuclear weapons are the enemy of humanity. Indeed, they’re not weapons at all. They’re some species of biological time bombs whose effects transcend time and space, poisoning the earth and its inhabitants for generations to come.” -General George Lee Butler

    The Rio Conference

    When the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development convened in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, nuclear weapons – arguably the most serious threat to the human future – were not on the agenda. It seems surrealistic that the leaders of the world’s nations gathered in Rio de Janeiro could devote nearly two weeks to the subjects of the environment and sustainable development without addressing, or at least acknowledging, the dangers of nuclear weapons.

    The Declaration issued from the Rio Conference contains 27 principles. None of them mention nuclear dangers, although one mentions warfare and one mentions peace. Principle 24 states: “Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.” Surely if warfare is destructive of the environment, nuclear warfare – if warfare would be an adequate way to conceptualize the extent of the devastation and annihilation caused by the use of nuclear weapons – would immeasurably aggravate the damage.

    Nuclear warfare has the potential to destroy cities, countries, even humanity itself. Given the magnitude of the potential dangers of nuclear weapons, it is surprising that these dangers did not rise to the level of inclusion in the Rio Conference.

    Principle 25 of the Rio Declaration states: “Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.” While true, this principle also does not sound an alarm regarding the magnitude of danger inherent in the nuclear weapons policies of the states that possess these weapons.

    One other principle of the Rio Declaration deserves mention. Principle 1 states: “Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.” Surely, this would include freedom from nuclear annihilation. Perhaps a corollary to this principle should be the oft-repeated statement of those who survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.”

    There are many possible explanations for why the Rio Conference did not take up the issue of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the delegates to the Rio Conference in 1992 had their hands full with other problems related to environment and sustainable development, of which there were many. Perhaps dealing with issues of nuclear dangers seemed too confrontational to the nuclear weapons states. Perhaps the organizers of the Rio Conference believed that nuclear weapons issues would be better dealt with in disarmament forums.

    Whatever their reasons for leaving nuclear weapons and their dangers to humanity off the Rio agenda, the Conference failed to deal with what is arguably the most acute present danger to human survival, sustainable development and environmental security. When the Conference was held in 1992 the Nuclear Age, which was initiated by the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in World War II, was 47 years old. The temperature in the pot in which the frog is treading water had grown very warm indeed.

    Nuclear Weapons: Warnings, Promises and Failure to Act

    We are approaching the ten-year anniversary of the Rio Conference, and the water temperature has continued to rise. Not that there have not been warnings. Many of the greatest individuals of the 20th century have spoken out against nuclear weapons. The list is impressive: Albert Camus, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Albert Schweitzer, Jacques Cousteau, Mikhail Gorbachev, the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Religious leaders, military leaders and political leaders have spoken out. Nobel Laureates have spoken out, but the frog still treads water as the temperature rises.

    Since the Rio Conference, there have been a number of key events related to the elimination of nuclear weapons. At the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. At that time, the nuclear weapons states promised the completion of negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the early conclusion of negotiations for a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and “determined pursuit…of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons….”

    We have learned, however, that the promises of the nuclear weapons states mean very little. A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was completed, but has yet to be ratified by some key states, including the United States and China. Negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty have not yet gotten off the ground. And the “determined pursuit” promise has led only to systematic and progressive efforts to maintain a two-tier structure of nuclear weapon “have” and “have-not” states.

    In 1996, the International Court of Justice considered the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The Court concluded that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally illegal, but could not decide whether or not it would be illegal if the very survival of a state were at stake. The Court did make clear, however, that there could be no legal threat or use if such use would not discriminate between soldiers and civilians or if such use would cause unnecessary suffering. It is difficult to imagine any possible use of nuclear weapons that would not violate these principles of international humanitarian law.

    The Court was unanimous in concluding: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” The nuclear weapons states have largely ignored this strong and clear opinion of the highest court in the world.

    In August 1996, the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, composed of a distinguished group of experts from throughout the world convened by the Australian government, issued its report. The Commission stated: “The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used – accidentally or by decision – defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance they will never be produced again.”

    The Canberra Commission viewed the existing situation of a world divided into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots” as discriminatory, unstable and therefore unsustainable. They wrote: “Nuclear weapons are held by a handful of states which insist that these weapons provide unique security benefits, and yet reserve uniquely to themselves the right to own them. This situation is highly discriminatory and thus unstable; it cannot be sustained. The possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them.”

    The Canberra Commission recommended a series of immediate steps: taking nuclear forces off alert; removal of warheads from delivery vehicles; ending deployment of non-strategic nuclear weapons; ending nuclear testing; initiating negotiations to further reduce United States and Russian nuclear arsenals; and agreement amongst the nuclear weapons states of reciprocal no first use undertakings, and of a non-use undertaking by them in relation to the non-nuclear weapon states.

    In December 1996, a group of some 60 retired generals and admirals from throughout the world issued a statement in which they said: “We, military professionals, who have devoted our lives to the national security of our countries and our peoples, are convinced that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons in the armories of nuclear powers, and the ever present threat of acquisition of these weapons by others, constitute a peril to global peace and security and to the safety and survival of the people we are dedicated to protect.” Among other urgently needed steps, the generals and admirals agreed that “long-term international nuclear policy must be based on the declared principle of continuous, complete and irrevocable elimination of nuclear weapons.”

    In February 1998, 117 civilian leaders, including 47 past or present presidents and prime ministers, issued a statement calling the threat of nuclear conflict “intolerable,” and invoking a “moral imperative” for the elimination of nuclear weapons. They called, as had the Canberra Commission, for immediate steps to reduce nuclear dangers, including the development of “a plan for eventual implementation, achievement and enforcement of the distant but final goal of elimination.” They also called for consideration of a ban on the production and possession of large, long-range ballistic missiles.

    “The world is not condemned to live forever with threats of nuclear conflict, or the anxious fragile peace imposed by nuclear deterrence,” the civilian leaders stated. “Such threats are intolerable and such a peace unworthy. The sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons invokes a moral imperative for their elimination. That is our mandate. Let us begin.”

    In May 1998, India demonstrated the unsustainability of the global nuclear balance by testing nuclear weapons with Pakistan following closely in India’s footsteps. Both countries demonstrated their nuclear capabilities, and held mass public demonstrations lauding the scientists and political leaders who had given them these new powers. South Asia suddenly became a flashpoint of nuclear danger.

    In June 1998, the foreign ministers of eight middle power states (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden) expressed their concern for the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament and called for action by the nuclear weapons states. In a Joint Declaration issued in Dublin on June 9th, the foreign ministers called for a New Agenda to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world. They stated: “We can no longer remain complacent at the reluctance of the nuclear-weapon states and the three nuclear-weapons-capable states to take that fundamental and requisite step, namely a clear commitment to the speedy, final and total elimination of their nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability and we urge them to take that step now.”

    More recently, at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Review Conference, the parties to the treaty, led by the middle power states calling for a New Agenda, agreed to 13 practical steps to further the goal of nuclear disarmament. Among the new promises made by the nuclear weapons states were “an unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals…” and a promise to preserve and strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty “as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons….” The nuclear weapons states have thus far shown no progress on the first promise, and the US is thwarting the second promise by threatening to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to deploy a National Missile Defense system.

    Nuclear Strategy

    Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the preeminent military and economic power in the world. The United States is the leader of NATO and has the potential to lead the world to achieve the promises of eliminating nuclear weapons. The United States, however, has not demonstrated any inclination to lead in this direction. Through eight years of the Clinton administration, the United States made no further agreements toward achieving nuclear disarmament. In fact, under Clinton’s leadership the United States and Russia postponed the date to achieve the disarmament levels set forth in the START II agreement from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007. Russian President Putin offered to reduce strategic nuclear arsenals in a START III agreement from START II levels of 3,500 to 1,500 or lower. Clinton failed to respond. He may be remembered as the President who had the greatest opportunity to end the nuclear weapons threat but lacked the vision and/or courage to do so.

    Whereas Clinton may have lacked vision altogether in the area of nuclear disarmament, George Bush has a confused and dangerous vision. Bush sees the primary nuclear threat to the United States arising from so-called “rogue” nations such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. He seeks to build a missile shield to protect the United States, its friends, allies and troops from a ballistic missile attack by such smaller hostile states. To do so, he would abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the treaty the US promised to preserve and strengthen at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. This has led to expressions of grave concern on the part of Russia, China and a number of US allies. US deployment of a National Missile Defense, as envisaged by Bush, could result in undermining the entire structure of arms control agreements that have been built up over many decades and initiate new arms races.

    While Bush has also made more positive proposals for the unilateral reduction of the size of the US nuclear arsenal to the lowest level consistent with national security and for further de-alerting of the US nuclear arsenal, these proposals would provide a better basis for global stability if they were made in the context of multilateral agreements and were made irreversible. The US has also continued to develop a new nuclear warhead, the B61-11, a warhead claimed to be capable of earth penetration and bunker busting. It has a smaller yield and is presumably a more usable nuclear warhead. The US has also indicated in a 1997 Presidential Decision Directive (PDD 60) that it would use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological weapons attack on the US, its troops or allies.

    The bottom line is that the US and the other nuclear weapons states seem intent upon continuing to rely upon their nuclear weapons for the indefinite future, regardless of their promises made in the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the destructive effects on the prospects for global security resulting from their shortsighted policies.

    The frog grows more lethargic as the water temperature rises.

    Sustainability

    Nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This has led to the comforting illusion that they will never be used again. But as long as these weapons exist in the arsenals of the world’s nuclear weapons states, there remains the possibility that they will be used – by accident or design. So long as these weapons exist, they will also be a spur and incitement to the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.

    What is the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used again in warfare? This is perhaps an impossible question to answer, but we know that the answer is not zero. We also know that relations between states can alter rapidly. Further, we know that there have been numerous instances in which states have considered using nuclear weapons or in which they have come close to accidental launches. One such incident occurred in 1995 when the Russians mistook a joint US-Norwegian rocket launch for an attack on their country. President Yeltsin, a man noted for excessive drinking, was awakened in the middle of the night to make the decision on whether or not to launch a retaliatory strike against the US. Yeltsin extended the time allotted to him to make the decision, and disaster was averted when it became clear that the missile was not aimed at Russia.

    Nuclear weapons do not protect any country, and it makes no sense to endanger the security of the world in a futile attempt to provide security to a few countries. Therefore, nuclear weapons must be abolished. This goal is in accord with security interests, international law and the moral foundation of all religions.

    Sustainable development presupposes protecting natural resources and the environment. The mining of uranium, the testing of nuclear weapons, and the ongoing problems of storing nuclear wastes present serious challenges to the environment and human health. The greatest challenge to sustainability, however, comes from the very existence of nuclear weapons, which pose a threat to humanity and all living things that surpasses other dangers. This threat must be addressed, and cannot be swept aside by those who otherwise express concern for the planet’s well being.

    When the International Court of Justice rendered its opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Court pointed out: “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.” In this way nuclear weapons are unique.

    How Did the Frog Get Into the Pot?

    The frog did not just jump into the pot. Someone dropped it in, someone with his own motivations. Likewise, the situation in which we now find ourselves with respect to nuclear weapons did not just occur. It was created and maintained by national leaders and others with their own motivations for wanting nuclear weapons and tolerating nuclear dangers.

    The Nuclear Age began with reasonable intentions. Émigré scientists, refugees of Hitler’s policies in Germany, worried about the danger of Hitler developing a nuclear weapon and its implications for the war in Europe. Leo Szilard, a brilliant Hungarian scientist, convinced his friend Albert Einstein to sign a letter to President Roosevelt warning of this danger. The letter encouraged Roosevelt to initiate a project to explore the creation of weapons that would unlock the power of the atom. The project began slowly, but when the United States entered World War II it expanded dramatically. Thousands of scientists and engineers worked on the top-secret Manhattan Project that resulted in the creation of the world’s first atomic weapons.

    Many of the scientists who had worked on creating the atomic bomb, led by Leo Szilard, tried to convince Roosevelt and then Truman that the bomb should not be used against Japan. A petition to President Truman drafted by Szilard and signed by 68 members of the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, stated: “The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new weapons of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.”

    The petition to President Truman was dated July 17, 1945, less than three weeks before the first atomic weapon was used at Hiroshima. When President Truman heard of the bomb’s “success” at Hiroshima, he said, “This is the greatest thing in history.” Truman believed that it might take the Soviet Union 20 years to develop an atomic bomb. It took them four years. From that point until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 the world experienced a nuclear arms race that would result in deployment of tens of thousands of ever more powerful nuclear weapons capable of destroying most life on Earth.

    Understanding the Frog’s Malaise

    The first thing that is necessary to understand about our present situation is that there is not just one frog in the pot. We are all in a nuclear cauldron, potentially sharing a common tragic fate. Some have already died – the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the uranium miners, the victims of nuclear experiments, the downwinders of nuclear tests, the soldiers and indigenous peoples deliberately exposed to nuclear tests. There will also be countless future generations that will pay the price — in genetic mutations, deformities, cancers and leukemias — of the radioactive legacy of preparing for nuclear war.

    The second thing necessary to understand is that those who have kept the frog in the pot are able to ignore the dangers to the frog so long as their goals are achieved. Many politicians, military leaders and academics believe that nuclear weapons make them more secure. In many respects, they do not believe that they are in the pot with the rest of us or, if they do, they believe that their personal gain outweighs the risks of disaster. They are true believers and they have constructed deeply held myths, which they have perpetuated to support their recklessness.

    The third thing necessary to understand is that there is no technological fix to the frog’s dilemma. No fancy umbrella over the pot will protect the frog from demise. The nuclear dilemma will not be resolved by a missile shield to protect against so-called “rogue” nations. Not only is it unlikely that a missile shield could ever be effective, but it is a way for certain countries to continue to rely upon nuclear weapons. A US missile shield will also be guaranteed to halt progress on nuclear disarmament with Russia and lead to new nuclear arms races in Asia. It is a costly and dangerous approach, which will decrease rather than increase security from nuclear dangers.

    What Keeps the Frog in the Pot?

    It was more than an oversight that nuclear weapons issues were not on the agenda at the Rio Conference, the world’s most significant conference for environment and sustainable development. Keeping the frog in the pot has been a matter of policy for the nuclear weapons states, and this policy has not been effectively challenged.

    If the frog continues treading water as the temperature rises, it will eventually die. Why does the frog fail to take action to save itself while the water temperature rises? If we can ascribe to the frog some human reasoning skills and other human characteristics, the following may be some of the principal factors that explain its failure to act, and also ours.

    Ignorance. The frog may fail to recognize the dilemma. It may be unable to predict the consequences of being in water in which the temperature is steadily rising.

    Complacency. The frog may feel comfortable in the warming water. It may believe that because nothing bad has happened yet, nothing bad will happen in the future.

    Deference to Authority. The frog may believe that others are in control of the thermostat and that it has no power to change the conditions in which it finds itself.

    Sense of Powerlessness. The frog may fail to realize its own power to affect change, and believe that there is nothing it can do to improve its situation.

    Fear. The frog may have concluded that, although there are dangers in the pot, the dangers outside the pot are even greater. Thus, it fails to take action, even though it could do so.

    Economic Advantage. The frog may believe that there are greater short-term rewards for staying in the pot than jumping out.

    Conformity. The frog may see other frogs treading water in the pot and not want to appear different by sounding an alarm or acting on its own initiative.

    Marginalization. The frog may have witnessed other frogs attempt to raise warnings or jump out, and seen them marginalized and ignored by the other frogs.

    Technological Optimism. The frog may understand that there is a problem that could lead to its demise, but believe that it is not necessary to act because someone will find a technological solution.

    Tyranny of Experts. Even though the frog may believe it is in danger, the experts may provide a comforting assessment that makes the frog doubt its own wisdom.

    Turning Down the Heat

    There are a number of important steps that can be taken to turn down the heat on nuclear dangers. Proposals for moving forward have been set forth in the statement of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, in the statements of the generals and admirals and the civilian leaders, and in the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament set forth in the 2000 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Turning down the heat on nuclear dangers is primarily a question of political will. Without political will progress will continue to be slow to non-existent. With political will to reduce nuclear dangers and achieve a nuclear weapons free world, important steps can be taken that would rapidly improve global security, including the following actions:

    1. De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.

    2. Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.

    3. Establish international accounting and control systems for all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials.

    4. Reaffirm the commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and cease efforts to violate that Treaty by the deployment of national or theater missile defenses, and cease the militarization of space.

    5. Sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, cease laboratory and subcritical nuclear tests designed to modernize and improve nuclear weapons systems, cease construction of Megajoule in France and the National Ignition Facility in the US and end research programs that could lead to the development of pure fusion weapons, and close the remaining nuclear test sites in Nevada and Novaya Zemlya.

    6. Support existing nuclear weapons free zones, and establish new ones in the Middle East, Central Europe, North Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.

    7. Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.

    8. Publicly acknowledge the weaknesses and fallibilities of deterrence: that deterrence is only a theory and is clearly ineffective against nations whose leaders may be irrational or suicidal; nor can deterrence assure against accidents, misperceptions, miscalculations, or terrorists.

    9. Publicly acknowledge the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under international law as stated by the International Court of Justice in its 1996 opinion, and further acknowledge the obligation under international law for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

    10. Publicly acknowledge the immorality of threatening to annihilate millions, even hundreds of millions, of people in the name of national security.

    11. Set forth a plan to complete the transition under international control and monitoring to zero nuclear weapons by 2020, with agreed upon levels of nuclear disarmament to be achieved by the NPT Review Conferences in 2005, 2010 and 2015.

    12. Begin to reallocate the billions of dollars currently being spent annually for maintaining nuclear arsenals ($35 billion in the U.S. alone) to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    Taking the Frog Out of the Pot

    Those who put the frog into the pot are not likely to be the same ones to take the frog out. We need new leadership and, as Einstein warned, a new way of thinking. There is only one way out of the pot, and that is by cooperation on a global scale. Absent such cooperation and the leadership to attain it, further nuclear proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons by accident or design are inevitable.

    Once the water in the pot has heated up, it is doubtful that the frog can get out of the pot by itself. The frog’s dilemma can only be resolved by getting it out of the pot or turning down the heat. To resolve the nuclear dilemma confronting humanity will require cooperation – cooperation among people, cooperation among countries. Currently the nuclear weapons states, led by the United States, are blocking that cooperation. That is why it is so essential for US citizens to press their government for leadership in achieving agreement for the verified elimination of nuclear weapons in all countries. It is also why the leadership of the middle power countries calling for effective nuclear disarmament is also so important.

    The frog may need help getting out of the pot, but this help is unlikely to be forthcoming unless it asks for help. To end the nuclear threat to humanity requires all of us to raise our voices and demand the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    A Final Word

    Nuclear weapons are not weapons of war. They are devices that kill indiscriminately, and their use cannot be confined to soldiers in combat. Nor is their threat limited in time or place. It affects humanity across the globe and across time. This threat, along with the damage nuclear weapons have already done to the environment, will be our generation’s legacy to the future inhabitants of the planet – if we are able to keep the planet intact.

    Nuclear weapons are the tools of fools and cowards. Those who promote these evil tools should be removed from leadership. They are the ones who have kept the frog in the pot and are manipulating the controls on the heat. They will stay in control until the people of this planet act in concert to change the rules, reach accords for cooperative and sustainable development, and end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life.

    The word croak has two meanings. One is the sound of a frog’s voice. The other is slang for “to die.” By recognizing the frog’s malaise and using our voices, we have the possibility to prevent the widespread death and destruction that will be the predictable result of continuing to base national security on the threat to use nuclear weapons. If we fail to recognize the seriousness of the frog’s malaise and fail to act on our own malaise, the result could be tragedy beyond imagination.

    In 1955 Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued a manifesto signed by themselves and some of the greatest scientists of the time. In that manifesto, they stated: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we instead choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings to human beings: remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.” The choice is still before us.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

     

    Appendix A

    Play a Role in Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat

    If you and others do nothing, humanity will eventually face a nuclear holocaust that in a worst case could end human life on Earth.

    The nuclear weapons threat will not diminish or go away if good people who care about a sustainable human future do nothing. If you would like to play a role in ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, I encourage you to take these steps.

    1. Educate yourself. A good place to begin is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s web site: www.wagingpeace.org. At this web site you will find a wealth of information on nuclear dangers as well as ideas for action. At this site you can sign up as a free online participating member of the Foundation and receive the monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower.

    2. Educate others. Spread the word. Help your family and friends to realize the danger and lack of sustainability of some nations continuing to rely upon nuclear weapons. You can send information to others from the Foundation’s web site.

    3. Take Action. Sign the Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity, and ask others to sign it. You can do this online at the above web site. Encourage political leaders to support the elimination of nuclear weapons and to oppose abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty by the United States.

    Appendix B

    Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    [This Appeal, initiated by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, has been signed by some of the world’s great peace leaders, including Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the XIVth Dailai Lama, and Queen Noor of Jordan. The Appeal has been signed by 37 Nobel Laureates, including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates.]

    We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilization and end most life on Earth.

    Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm.

    The obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects,” as unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice, is at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    More than ten years have now passed since the end of the Cold War, and yet nuclear weapons continue to cloud humanity’s future. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.

    We, therefore, call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity by taking thefollowing steps:

    De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.

    Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions foreffective verification and enforcement.

    Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    Appendix C

    13 Practical Steps for Nuclear DisarmamentThe following text is excerpted from the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review ConferenceFinal Document.

    The Conference agrees on the following practical steps for the systemic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and paragraphs 3 and 4(c) of the 1995 Decision on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament”:

    1. The importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

    2. A moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty.

    3. The necessity of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in accordance with the statement of the Special Coordinator in 1995 and the mandatecontained therein, taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their conclusion within five years.

    4. The necessity of establishing in the Conference on Disarmament an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate establishment of such a body.

    5. The principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures.

    6. 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.

    7. The early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions.

    8. The completion and implementation of the Trilateral Initiative between the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    9. Steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way thatpromotes international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all:

    – Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally.

    – Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to Article VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament.

    – The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process.

    – Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems.

    – A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that theseweapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination.

    – The engagement as soon as appropriate for all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.

    10. Arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material in peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently outside of the military programmes.

    11. Reaffirmation that the ultimate objective of the efforts of States in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

    12. Regular reports, within the framework of the NPT strengthened review process, by all States parties on the implementation of Article VI and paragraph 4 (c) of the 1995 Decision on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament”, and recalling the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996.

    13. The further development of the verification capabilities that will be required to provideassurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

  • Radiation Fallout Exposures: Demand for Full Disclosure

    It is a little known fact amongst members of the public that people who were alive, and particularly, who were in childhood, during the late l940s, the 1950s, and into the l960s, were subjected involuntarily to multiple radioactive fallout exposures right here in the United States. Even worse, these radioactive fallout exposures added on top of one another, coming from several sources.

    If one were to question a cross section of the public, chances are that few people would be aware of the fact that Nevada Test Site (NTS) fallout drifted across many portions of the United States. Adding to those NTS fallout exposures which began in l951 were further radioactive clouds from global fallout- fallout from atomic tests conducted in the l950s in the Marshall Islands, Chinese tests, and nuclear tests conducted in the former Soviet Union in the early l960s.

    Most people are aware of the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear reactor accident and its resulting offsite radiation emissions which released an estimated 12-15 curies of I-131 (radioactive iodine) onto surrounding communities.

    These exposures have been followed by reports of health problems in TMI exposed populations, by questions as to the validity of “official” I-131 release estimates, and inquiries as to whether other radioactive substances were also released. The Three Mile Island accident woke many Americans up to the possibility of health hazards of environmental radiation exposure from nuclear facilities close to home.

    I now ask the reader to sit down- the following figures are shocking. Twelve to fifteen curies of I-131 is bad enough, particularly when exposures were suffered by infants and children, during their most radiosensitive period of life. Now try somehow to conceive of the fact that the Nevada Test Site atomic tests released 150 million curies of I-131, which deposited throughout many portions of the US, and into Canada. Add to that the 8 billion curies of I-131 from US tests conducted in the Marshall Islands in the l950s, some of which drifted over the US, and the 12 billion curies of I-131 which were released in the early 1960s from tests in the former Soviet Union. Add to that releases from individual former Atomic Energy Commission sites such as Oak Ridge, Hanford (released 900,000 curies of I-131), Savannah River, Idaho National Engineering Lab and others, all part of the Manhattan Project’s atomic bomb building factory, for those who lived within the downwind areas of these sites. Then, once again, add to that staggering total, exposures to other radioactive substances within fallout which are known to be health harming (or, “biologically significant”).

    Perhaps the most disturbing part of this picture is the ethical/human rights issue involved. We have the right to expect a proper and adequate response from our government for these government-caused involuntary exposures and the painful health problems which may have resulted from these exposures. We should, at the very least, demand full disclosure of the extent of exposures- that is, our government should provide to us our added doses, and translation of these combined doses into health risk. This, at a very minimum.

    The national media has paid much attention to the unprecedented efforts bythe Department of Energy (DOE) to gain compensation for certain nuclear workers who suffered exposures on the job which have resulted in health problems. I applaud Secretary Richardson, DOE Secretary, for doing the right thing for at least some of the nuclear workers.

    And, now it is time for the public to know that one did not have to be a nuclear worker to receive significant, health damaging, combined exposures to radioactive substances, in this case, contained within fallout. Anyone who was alive during the period of atmospheric testing at the Nevada Test Site, in the Marshall Islands, and during Chinese and Russian tests, got the combined exposures to the range of radioactive substances which were airborne and deposited within the US.

    If you were in childhood during that period of time, you were dosed even more than an adult due to increased radiation uptake of a developing child. If you drank milk (whether cow’s or goat’s milk), your dose was substantially increased over that which you inhaled or ingested due to I-131 deposits on your food. Some peoples’ exposures, when the doses are added, were truly substantial, some peoples’ were not as high. Right now, the public has no idea what their true dose from these combined radioactive substances was, or what health risk these fallout doses present. In fact, most Americans do not even know they were exposed. We don’t even have an effort underway by the government to calculate the doses of those at greatest health risk from combined exposures to just one of the radioactive substances, I-131.

    Why hasn’t our government told us of these exposures? There is a program under development by the National Cancer Institue (NCI) to inform people of their I-131 exposures from the NTS, but that program will not provide combined I-131 doses and health risk from NTS I-131 plus other sources of exposure to the public. Neither will that program let people know their exposures to the other potentially health damaging radioactive substances released within NTS fallout.

    From this NCI I-131 communications program, we will be given just one part of the picture- I-131 exposures, and just from NTS testing. There may not be translation of these I-131 NTS doses into health risk. Representative doses (not individual doses) that people may have received from just one of the radionuclides released, I-131, and from just one I-131 exposure source, NTS, are posted on the National Cancer Institute website, without health risk information. It’s a start, but this is only one small part of the big picture of fallout exposures and radiation induced disease that these exposures may have caused in this country.

    Approximately $1.85 million was appropriated by Congress, thanks to the efforts of Senator Harkin’s (D-IA) office, to address fallout issues- this has turned into what is called a “feasibility” study- that is, an assessment of whether it is possible to add doses from multiple exposures, and to translate that information into health risk. Congress mandated this report to be released by last year and it still isn’t out, an obvious attempt to stall until the next administration is in power, an administration that might be far more industry friendly.

    The fallout “feasibility” study will finally be released for public comment in February. This feasibility study was led by CDC (within its National Center for Enviromental Health), using experts from NCI and past DOE scientists. One question asked by these agencies, of public representatives like me is- why spend more money to provide added doses and health risk to the public? In response I ask, why hasn’t this already been done? We have endured these exposures and the health consequences that often develop from these exposures which, for some, end in death. Why do we not, at a very minimum, have the right to know the full extent of our involuntary exposures, and the health risk accompanying these exposures? I should know- I have lost my entire family to what are believed to be radiation exposure induced cancers and other exposure health effects.

    It is of significance to note that there are those within the scientific community who feel that doses can be added NOW, without a dragged out “feasibility assessment”, and that health risk can be provided NOW. Why do exposed populations deserve any less? Why so much foot dragging by the government, keeping the public from essential information with direct impact upon their lives?

    The reason that it is important to understand the full extent of combined exposures and health risk from multiple fallout exposures, is that people need to know whether they are at significant enough health risk from their exposures that they should be monitored and treated for radiation induced cancers and other debilitating and sometimes life threatening diseases which are plausibly linked to these exposures to I-131 or the other radionuclides released in fallout.

    Some 300 radioactive substances were released from NTS atomic tests, some of which can cause cancers far more frequently lethal than thyroid cancer, which has been linked to I-131 exposure. People, once exposed, remain at lifetime risk for radiation induced cancers and other diseases linked to these exposures. Why hasn’t the public been given this essential, lifesaving information on the other radioactive substances to which we have been exposed from fallout sources?

    ACTION ALERT: Now is truly the time to let the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and your representatives in Congress, know that the American public demands, at the very least, to be informed openly and honestly of the full extent of combined exposures and health risk from these exposures, from combined fallout sources. If we don’t act now, fallout exposures will become a topic which some officials will be very very glad to see “swept under the rug.”

    Please contact your congressional delegations, or send an email, fax, or letter to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, at wagingpeace@napf.org, and your communication will be forwarded to CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • National Missile Defense: Just Say No!

    Ballistic missile defense sounds on the surface like a good idea. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could just make those nasty nuclear weapons harmless? That is, their nuclear weapons, not ours. We don’t worry much about the threat posed by our own nuclear weapons, but these, of course, are not aimed at us. They are aimed at others or, more accurately, they are presently aimed at the oceans if we are to believe Mr. Clinton. They can, however, be reprogrammed to strike anywhere on only a moment’s notice.

    Our nuclear weapons still pose a security problem to us because relying on nuclear weapons for security means that there will be other countries that will do so as well, and the result will be that we are targeted by their nuclear weapons. Ballistic missile defense, if we are to believe its proponents, offers a technological solution to this dilemma. It is, however, an unproven and unprovable solution and comes at a high price, both monetarily and in terms of security.

    Ballistic missile defense was pushed by the Reagan administration. In that early incarnation it was derided “Star Wars.” Since then, it has gone through many more incarnations, the latest of which is a land-based National Missile Defense (NMD) system that is intended to defend against an attack by relatively small and technologically unsophisticated countries such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq or Libya. None of these countries, however, currently has ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States. No matter, we are told by proponents of NMD; it is better to be prepared for any eventuality.

    Despite repeated assurances from our government that an NMD would not be designed to protect the US against a Russian attack, the Russians are not convinced. From their perspective, an NMD would undermine their deterrence capability. Even though the NMD would have only 100 to 200 interceptor missiles and the Russians would have more missiles than this aimed at the US, the Russians are concerned on two grounds. First, it would create the possibility that the US could initiate a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia and use the NMD simply to deal with the presumably small remaining number of Russian missiles that survived the attack. This scenario may sound far-fetched to us since we don’t envision ever doing such a thing. The Russians, however, cannot dismiss this scenario since they, like us, base their nuclear strategy on just such worst-case scenarios. The second reason for Russian concern about US deployment of a NMD system is that, although initially the system might have only 100 to 200 interceptor missiles, more could be added later.

    The Russians have made it clear that if the US goes forward in deploying an NMD system this could spell the end of arms control with the Russians. Implementation of an NMD system would require the US to abrogate or violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that was entered into between the US and Russia in 1972. The purpose of the treaty was to prevent a defensive arms race that could lead to a renewed offensive nuclear arms race. The ABM Treaty has been at the heart of arms control efforts between the two countries for most of the past three decades. If the treaty fails due to US plans to deploy NMD, the Russians have said that they will withdraw from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), will pull out of the START II agreements, in which the two countries have agreed to lower the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads on each side to 3,000 to 3,500, and will refuse to negotiate further nuclear reductions under proposed START III agreements.

    Under proposed START III agreements, the Russians have put forward a proposal for further reducing nuclear arsenals to 1,500 or less on each side. Thus far, the US has responded by saying that it is only willing to go down to 2,500 to 2,000 strategic nuclear weapons.

    The stakes of NMD deployment in our relationship with Russia are very high. They are no less so in our relations with China. Currently China has some 20 nuclear weapons capable of reaching US territory. If the US deploys an NMD with 100 to 200 interceptor missiles, the Chinese have indicated that they will proceed with building and deploying more nuclear-armed missiles capable of overcoming this system and reaching the United States.

    You might ask: why would Russia or China take these steps since it is highly likely that a US NMD system would be ineffective? The answer is that the Russian and Chinese planners must plan for the system to work as the US plans it to work; to do less would be viewed by their security establishments as being irresponsible. Thus, whether or not a US NMD system works, it would be viewed by Russia and China as provocative and would most likely lead to new arms races.

    The arms races would not be limited to the three countries in question. If China increases its strategic nuclear arsenal, India (which views China as a potential threat) would probably follow suit. If India increases its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan would certainly follow suit. There has also been talk of Theater Missile Defense in North Asia, which could have similar effects throughout Asia, and of deploying a Theater Missile Defense in the Middle East, which would underline the nuclear imbalance in the region.

    Will the deployment of an NMD system make the US more secure? It is doubtful. Because of the geopolitical implications described above, it will probably make the US less secure. If this is true, why is there such a strong push within the US government to deploy an NMD system? Why did the Congress vote overwhelmingly to deploy such a system “as soon as technologically feasible”? I think there are two reasons. First, a NMD system plays well in Peoria. It gives the impression of improving security even if it does just the opposite. Second, it provides a welfare program for the military-industrial complex in the aftermath of the Cold War. It provides a way of transferring substantial funding (ranging from $60 to $120 billion or even higher) from the American taxpayer to the defense industry. This is a cynical way for politicians to fulfill their obligations under the Constitution to provide for the common security of the American people.

    But could the system actually work? Anything is possible theoretically, but it is highly unlikely. Up to the present, tests of defensive missiles have failed to consistently and reliably shoot down incoming missiles, even when there is only one missile to destroy and it is known when and from where the missile will be launched. Many experts have argued that it will be far easier for offensive missile attacks to overcome defensive systems by using decoys to trick the defensive missiles.

    Rather than pursuing the delusion of missile defense, US officials would be better off pursuing another course of action. First, they could seek to develop policies that would make friends of potential enemies. There seems to be some progress on this front in relation to US-North Korean relations. Second, and most important, the US should take a leadership role in fulfilling its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty for good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has stated that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and that all nuclear weapons states are obligated to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects.”

    At the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, promises were made to preserve and strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty “as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons.” US plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses, either nationally or regionally, are at odds with these promises. Also, at this Review Conference, the nuclear weapons states promised an “unequivocal undertaking” to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. This is where the US, as the world’s economically and militarily most powerful country, must now provide needed leadership. Plans to deploy a US National Missile Defense will undermine this possibility. The results could be disastrous not only for US security but also for our credibility in the world.

    The articles that follow provide international perspectives on US plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses. They reinforce each other in the view that this would be a dangerous and foolhardy path for the United States to pursue.

     

  • US Nuclear Weapons Policy After September 11th

    US Nuclear Weapons Policy After September 11th

    Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush gathered together his top security advisors to consider the implications of terrorism for US nuclear policy. A few facts were clear. There were well-organized and suicidal terrorists who were committed to inflicting large-scale damage on the US. These terrorists had attempted to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. They probably had not succeeded yet in obtaining nuclear weapons, but would certainly keep trying to do so. It was highly unlikely that terrorists would be able to deliver nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction by means of missiles, but they could potentially smuggle one or more nuclear weapons into the United States and use them to attack US cities. The death and destruction would be enormous, dwarfing the damage caused on September 11th.

    These facts alarmed the Bush security advisors. They went to work immediately developing plans to protect the American people against the possible nuclear terrorism that threatened American cities. The first prong of their defense against nuclear terrorism was to call for dramatically increased funding to secure the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Encouraged by the success that had been achieved up to this point with the Nunn-Lugar funding, they realized that this was an area in which they could work closely with Russia in assuring that these weapons were kept secure and out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. The Russians were eager to get this help and to join with the Americans in this effort to prevent nuclear terrorism.

    The second prong of the US plan was to work with the Russians in achieving significant reductions in the nuclear arsenals of each country in order that there would be less nuclear weapons available to potentially fall into the hands of terrorists. Since the end of the Cold War the US and Russia have been reducing their nuclear arsenals, and now it was time to make even greater progress toward the promise of the two countries “to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” This meant reaching an agreement as a next step to slash the size of their arsenals to a few hundred nuclear warheads and to make these reductions irreversible. The international community applauded the boldness of this step, celebrating this major achievement in nuclear disarmament and this important step toward realizing the promise of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The third prong of the US plan was to give its full support to bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force, giving momentum to assuring an end to nuclear testing for all time. This step was viewed by the Bush security advisors as having indirect consequences for nuclear terrorism by assuring that other countries would forego the capability to improve the sophistication of their nuclear arsenals. It would be seen as a sign of US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons, and this would have a positive effect on preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    The fourth prong of the US plan was to reevaluate the administration’s commitment to developing and deploying missile defenses. Prior to September 11th, President Bush and his security team had been strong advocates of developing and deploying ballistic missile defenses. President Bush had even been threatening to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to move forward with missile defense deployment. Following September 11th, it was clear that it made little sense to devote another $100 billion or more to missile defenses when terrorists were capable of attacking US cities by far simpler means. There were more urgent needs for these resources to be used in improving US intelligence and keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Therefore, the decision was made to put the development of missile defenses on the back burner and instead devote major resources to safeguarding nuclear materials throughout the world. These actions were extremely helpful in improving our relations with both Russia and China, which were both relieved at not having to respond to our missile defenses by increasing their nuclear arsenals.

    The fifth prong of the US plan was to work intensively with countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel to convince them that nuclear weapons were not in their security interests and that they would have a heavy price to pay if they did not join us in moving rapidly toward a nuclear-weapons-free world. The Bush advisors knew that this would be difficult, but they were certain that the US example of curtailing its own nuclear arsenal and foregoing missile defenses, along with support to these countries for economic development, would convince them to follow our lead.

    The world’s leaders and citizens have not heard about these US actions to combat nuclear terrorism because they never happened. The description above is an imaginative account of what might have happened — what should have happened. The most remarkable reality about the US response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 is how little these attacks actually affected US nuclear policy. Although US nuclear forces will certainly not deter terrorists, US nuclear policy remains highly dependent on nuclear weapons and the policy of nuclear deterrence.

    To set the record straight, the Bush administration has supported cuts in the Nunn-Lugar funding for securing Russian nuclear weapons and materials. It has called for reductions in deployed strategic nuclear weapons over a ten-year period, although not within the scope of a binding treaty and, in fact, has indicated it plans to put the deactivated warheads on the shelf for potential future use. It has come out against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and boycotted a UN conference to bring the treaty into force more rapidly. President Bush has announced that the US will unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and move forward rapidly to deploy ballistic missile defenses, a move that has drawn critical response from both Russia and China. Finally, the Bush administration, rather than putting pressure on India and Pakistan to disarm, has ended the sanctions imposed on them for testing nuclear weapons in May 1998. The administration has never put pressure on Israel to eliminate its nuclear arsenal, although this is a major factor in motivating Arab countries to develop their own nuclear arsenals.

    While there is much the Bush administration might have done to make nuclear terrorism less likely, the path they have chosen increases the risks of nuclear terrorism. It also undermines our relationship with countries we need in the fight against terrorism in general and nuclear terrorism in particular. Finally, the US nuclear policy after September 11th is a slap in the face to the 187 parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and increases the possibilities of nuclear proliferation and a breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and regime.

     

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Commentary on the Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    The Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity was initiated by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in early 2000. By April 2000 it had some 50 prominent signers. It was run as a half-page advertisement in the New York Times on the opening day of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference on April 24, 2000. Since then more prominent leaders from throughout the world have signed the Appeal. Signers include 35 Nobel Laureates including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates, former heads of state, diplomats, military leaders, scientists and entertainers, each a leader in his or her own field. What follows is the appeal set forth in italics with comments by signers of the Appeal.

    We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilization and end all life on Earth.

    According to Oscar Arias, a Nobel Peace Laureate and former President of Costa Rica, “The existence of nuclear weapons presents a clear and present danger to life on Earth.”

    Jean-Michel Cousteau, the founder and president of the Ocean Futures Society, states, “The canary is dead…and we are going on with business as usual. How can we better move the public out of lethargy so we can protect the fragile peace?” This is our challenge with regard to the nuclear threats that confront humanity.

    Former U.S. Senator Alan Cranston argues, “There is a simple reason for focusing on the nuclear issue. Many, many issues are of supreme importance in one way or another, but if we blow ourselves up with nuclear weapons, no other issue is really going to matter. Quite possibly there would be no other human beings left to be concerned about anything else.”

    Father Theodore Hesburgh, the President Emeritus of Notre Dame University and one of the great educators of our time, writes, “The threat of nuclear war in our time has been the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced on Earth.”

    Former Australian Ambassador Richard Butler states, “Disarmament requires politicians and governments who know the truth – nuclear weapons threaten all and must be eliminated.”

    Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm.

    Can there be any doubt that nuclear weapons, capable of destroying the entire human species and most other forms of life, are the most serious moral issue of our time.

    The XIVth Dalai Lama has called for both internal and external disarmament. With regard to external disarmament, he states, “We must first work on the total abolishment of nuclear weapons.”

    Gerry Spence, the famed trial attorney and author, writes, “All my life I’ve worked for justice. What kind of justice could possibly exist in a nuclear bomb?”

    Another attorney, Jonathan Granoff, the vice president and UN representative of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, writes, “We are the first generation which must choose whether life will continue. This living sphere may be the only such place in the entire universe where this gift of life, this gift to love, exists. We surely do not have the right to place it at risk through our collective ingenuity and in the service of something we have created.”

    Harrison Ford, one of the great actors of our time, argues, “The United States must assume world leadership to end once and for all the threat of nuclear war. It is our moral responsibility.”

    Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire writes, “The hope lies in the truth being spoken that we cannot use these weapons to kill our own brothers and sisters, and in the process destroying our homeland, Mother Earth.”

    Ambassador Richard Butler states the matter simply, “There are plenty of experts who can argue and discuss the problem of proliferation, but it is beyond doubt that this in itself will not do the job. Doctrines of deterrence obfuscate the central reality that the day these weapons are used will be a catastrophe.”

    The obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects,” as unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice, is at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The highest court in the world, known as the World Court, wrote in a 1996 opinion that it was their unanimous opinion that “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

     

    Ten years have now passed since the end of the Cold War, and yet nuclear weapons continue to cloud humanity’s future. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.

    Retired US Admiral Eugene Carroll, the Deputy Director of the Center for Defense Information, argues, “American leaders have declared that nuclear weapons will remain the cornerstone of US national security indefinitely. In truth, as the world’s only remaining superpower, nuclear weapons are the sole military source of our national insecurity. We, and the whole world, would be much safer if nuclear weapons were abolished and Planet Earth was a nuclear free zone.”

    Retired US Admiral Noel Gayler, a former Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command, asks, “Does nuclear disarmament imperil our security?” He answers his question, “No. It enhances it.”

    The former Chief of the Indian Naval Staff, Admiral L. Ramdas, states, “We have to give expression to the need of the hour, which very simply put is to run down nuclear weapons to zero and recycle these huge budgets in the areas where it is most needed – human security.”

    Queen Noor of Jordan argues persuasively, “The sheer folly of trying to defend a nation by destroying all life on the planet must be apparent to anyone capable of rational thought. Nuclear capability must be reduced to zero, globally, permanently. There is no other option.”

    Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, states, “We should get rid of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will not protect us. Only a more equitable world will protect us.”

    Nobel Peace Laureate Betty Williams, states, “We must put an end to this insanity and ‘End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity.’”

    We, therefore, call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity by taking the following steps:

    • Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
    • De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.
    • Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.
    • Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.
    • Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    Former US President Jimmy Carter has argued, “All nuclear states must renew efforts to achieve worldwide reduction and ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. In the meantime, it requires no further negotiations for leaders of nuclear nations to honor existing nuclear security agreements, including the test ban and anti-ballistic missile treaties, and to remove nuclear weapons from their present hair-trigger alert status.”

    Nobel Peace Laureate Oscar Arias argues that “the tens of billions of dollars that are dedicated to their [nuclear weapons] development and maintenance should be used instead to alleviate human need and suffering.”

    Muhammad Ali, the great boxing champion and humanitarian, states, “We must not only control the weapons that can kill us, we must bridge the great disparities of wealth and opportunity among peoples of the world, the vast majority of whom live in poverty without hope, opportunity or choices in life. These conditions are a breeding ground for division that can cause a desperate people to resort to nuclear weapons as a last resort.” Ali concludes, “Our only hope lies in the power of our love, generosity, tolerance and understanding and our commitment to making the world a better place for all of Allah’s children.”

    Father Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame University, argues, “This is a time to reinvigorate our efforts towards reductions while we still have the opportunity of doing so. Nothing should distract us from this ultimate goal, which is all in the right direction for the peace and security of humankind.”

    How Can We Move Forward?

    Our best hope in moving forward lies with the power of the people. We cannot count on our leaders to act in good faith and in a timely way on this issue without pressure from the people.

    Australian Ambassador Richard Butler argues, “The key requirement for ending the nuclear threat to human existence is for ordinary people to bring the issue back to the domestic political agenda. Voters must make clear to those seeking public office that they will not get their vote unless they promise to pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament.”

    Arun Gandhi, the founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, concludes, “The people of the world must wake up to the negativity that has governed our lives for centuries giving rise to hate, discrimination, oppression, exploitation and leading to the creation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.”

    Harrison Ford puts the matter clearly, “We have been led to believe that we have come a long way toward world nuclear disarmament. But that is not the case. Our government is not doing all that it could. We must urge our leaders to fulfill the obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

    The mayor of Nagasaki, Iccho Itoh, states, “I believe that the abolition of nuclear weapons can be accomplished by consolidating the efforts of world citizens and NGOs and mobilizing the conscience of humanity. Let us focus all our efforts on realizing a 21st century free from nuclear weapons and building a world in which our children can live in peace.”

    Maj Britt Theorin, a member of the European Parliament and former Swedish Ambassador for Disarmament, proclaims, “The unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear weapon states at the Non-Proliferation Conference to eliminate their nuclear arsenals is a victory. Together with scientists and NGOs, we now have five years to present a timetable for how and when all nuclear weapons will be eliminated.”

    This is our challenge. The people must awaken and act in their own self-interest and the interests of all humanity to end the nuclear weapons threat to our common future.

  • Non-Proliferation Treaty Stays Alive – for now

    With the exception of a few cloistered academics, almost no one would seriously argue that the spread of nuclear weapons would make the world a safer place. Most individuals, including policy makers, understand that it is essential to future security to keep nuclear weapons from spreading. Based on this understanding, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was put forward and signed by the US, UK and USSR (three countries with nuclear weapons) in 1968. The Treaty entered into force in 1970. Since then the Non-Proliferation Treaty has become the centerpiece of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Currently there are only four countries in the world that have not signed and ratified the NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan and Cuba. The first three of these have nuclear weapons.

    At the heart of the NPT is a basic bargain: the countries without nuclear weapons agree not to acquire or otherwise develop these weapons in exchange for the nuclear weapons states agreeing to engage in good faith efforts to eliminate their arsenals. This bargain is found in Article VI of the Treaty, which calls for “good faith” negotiations on nuclear disarmament. Many of the non-nuclear weapons states have complained over the years that the nuclear weapons states have not upheld their end of the bargain.

    In 1995, when the Treaty was extended indefinitely after powerful lobbying by the nuclear weapons states, these states promised the “determined pursuit” of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally with the ultimate goal of their elimination. Over the next five years, however, these countries continued to rely upon their nuclear arsenals to the dismay of many countries without nuclear weapons.

    When the five-year Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference was held in April and May 2000, the parties to the Treaty, including the nuclear weapons states, agreed to take a number of “practical steps” to implement promises under Article VI of the Treaty. Thirteen steps were listed. I would like to highlight just two. The first of these is an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….” The second is “early entry into force and full implementation of START II [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II] and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons….”

    The “unequivocal undertaking” is language that the New Agenda Coalition (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and South Africa) has been pressing for, along with practical steps to achieve “the total elimination” of nuclear weapons. In essence this commitment is a reaffirmation of what the nuclear weapons states promised many years ago when they first signed the Treaty in 1968.

    Moving forward with START II and START III are also in the offing. After many years, the Russian Duma finally ratified START II, and President Putin has indicated that he is prepared to proceed with reductions to 1,000 to 1,500 strategic nuclear warheads in START III. The US has responded for inexplicable reasons that it is only prepared to discuss reductions to the 2,500 level at this point, a response hardly in keeping with its promises to pursue good faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons globally.

    An even greater problem, however, lies in US determination to deploy a National Missile Defense. It can hardly do this and keep its promise of “preserving and strengthening” the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The US has been trying unsuccessfully to convince the Russians that the ABM Treaty should be amended to allow the US to deploy a National Missile Defense. However, this is exactly what the ABM Treaty was designed to prevent, based on the reasoning that a strong defense would lead to further offensive arms races, and the Russians want nothing to do with altering the ABM Treaty.

    US officials have told the Russians that the National Missile Defense that the US seeks to deploy is aimed not at them, but at “states of concern” (the new US name for states they formerly referred to as “rogue states”). These officials have actually encouraged the Russians to keep their nuclear armed missiles on hair-trigger alert and not reduce the size of their arsenal below START III levels in order to be able to successfully overcome a US National Missile Defense. In their eagerness to promote the National Missile Defense, these officials are actually encouraging Russian policies that will make an accidental or unintended nuclear war more likely. Russia is not buying this, and has made clear that if the US proceeds with deployment of a National Missile Defense, thereby abrogating the ABM Treaty, Russia will withdraw from START II and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    US insistence on proceeding with a National Missile Defense will be even more destabilizing in Asia. The Chinese have made clear that their response to US deployment of a National Missile Defense will require them to further develop their nuclear forces (at present the Chinese have only 20 nuclear armed missiles capable of reaching US territory). Should China increase its nuclear capabilities, India is likely to follow suit and Pakistan would likely follow India. How Japan, North Korea, South Korea and Taiwan would respond remain large question marks.

    At the recent Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference the US committed itself to “preserving and strengthening” the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. US plans to move forward with a National Missile Defense are incompatible with this promise. If the US wants to uphold the Non-Proliferation Treaty and prevent the disintegration of this Treaty, it must act in good faith. This means finding another way to deal with potentially dangerous states than building an unworkable, provocative and hugely expensive missile defense system.

    The 2000 NPT Review Conference offered some promise of progress on nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, the fine words Final Document of the Conference notwithstanding, this promise will be dashed if the US continues in its foolhardy and quixotic attempt to put a shield over its head. Such a course will lead only to a leaky umbrella and global nuclear chaos. A far safer course for the US would be to carry out its promise of seeking “the total elimination” of the world’s nuclear arsenals. Without US leadership this will not happen. With US leadership a nuclear weapons free world could become a reality in fairly short order. It is past time for this issue to enter the public arena and move up on the public agenda. The American people deserve to become part of this decision which will so dramatically affect their future and the future of the planet.

  • Signposts, Milestones to a Culture of Peace

    The subject I have been asked to address is one of optimism – “Signs that we are on the road to a culture of peace.” It is one that I can’t, with integrity, address entirely in that frame. Instead I would like to speak in terms of signposts, milestones and paving stones on the road to a culture of peace because it seems to me that for every sign of peace there is a counter sign of war, of conflict, of human violations.

    Actually, the state of affairs is more dismal than merely counter signs to peace.I think if I had to broadly define Western Culture, I could, without hesitation, say that we live in a war culture despite the fact that the majority of the members of civil society are not interested in being warriors. In the twentieth century alone, in the neighbourhood of “two hundred million people have been killed, directly or indirectly, in wars” – over twenty million directly in wars – in man-made violence.We live in a world where, at present, there are about fifty small wars taking place – a situation that is likely to multiply as populations expand, resources shrink, or are destroyed.Even though, western culture has a history of democracy originating with the Greeks, war has always played a defining part.However, I am not suggesting that violence or aggressionare innate in humans, but violence and aggression may be culturally determined. (Bookchin, 110, Weeramantry, 11)

    I am not a war historian – but it seems to me that beginning in the nineteenth century war, the number of deaths,- and deaths on a massive scale – and threats to civilian populations has progressively grown.I would suggest that the cause of this phenomenon coincides with the birth of the industrial epoch and its expansionist goals and is perhaps the root from which the unprecedented scale of violence emerges.The situation has been further exacerbated – and perhaps even caused – not only the development of technology but by the death of God defined as the “universal communion of man” and its replacement by worship of technology.There is little faith in resolving situations between people peacefully.The faith has been transferred to technology – peace kept by terror – a nuclear armed missile named “peacemaker,” for example; the concept of safety under the “nuclear umbrella”; protection enforced by Stars Wars, National Missile Defence System, the weaponization of space; and so on.

    We live in warrior culture in which we human beings, are engaged in a struggle to maintain our human dignity and to live in a peaceful and just society.

    Occasionally, individuals who epitomize this struggle, emerge, and as a consequence of their principled stands focus our attention on – and raise our awareness of – the forces of domination and destruction – knowledge and understanding that often has disappeared into individual and collective amnesia, in pursuing the day-to-day functions of everyday life. Individuals like Mahatma Gandhi, Vaclav Havel, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Nelson Mandela remind us of our humanity and our responsibility to maintain human dignity and to provide us with the energy and hope to continue on our road – or roads to a Culture of Peace:

    For there are two roads to be travelled concurrently.The first is a tough road – to fight against a system seemingly determined to annihilate us as it accumulates arsenals of weapons of mass destruction and maintains policies that could bring about their use; the second is peace-building – building a road to peace.The first is about survival, the second is about peace.

    The first road to be travelled is in the active pursuit of the elimination of nuclear weapons, and the mobilization of political will to ban the weaponization of space. At the moment, we have the ability to destroy ourselves and the planet in an afternoon.As well, we are already facing 21st Century weapons of mass destruction which bode ill for humankind and have the potential for destruction greater than nuclear war.

    Bill Joy, Co-founder and Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems wrote to me about the new technological weapons and asked me “to raise the issues of these technologies and support efforts to contain these new dangers”. Mr. Joy is concerned, first of all, because they “may empower nearly anyone to [commit] massively destructive acts,” and secondly, because these technologies could cause an arms race similar to that of nuclear weapons. These weapons – genetics, nanotechnology and robotics – are capable of runaway self-replication and destruction on a such a scale that, in the case of nanotechnology the biosphere could be destroyed within half and hour.”This is the first moment in the history of our planet,” writes Carl Sagan in”Pale Blue Dot” when any species, by its own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself- as well as to vast numbers of others.” (Joy letter; quoted in Joy)

    Nuclear war, or war utilizing these technologies, is not war in the traditional sense.Nuclear weapons are not weapons in a conventional sense that can be used in a war where one side becomes the victor and the other the defeated Hans Morgenthau asserts that the concepts nuclear”weapons” and nuclear “war” are euphemisms.A nuclear weapon is “an instrument of unlimited, universal destruction.”Nuclear war is suicide and genocide. The control and abolition of nuclear weapons and these 21st Century technologies is essential if we are not to pass along, generation after generation, the intolerable threat of nuclear holocaust, or destruction from these new technologies, and if we are continue to exist in history.

    The second and concurrent road on which we must travel – and one we must travel in the shadow of extinction – We “walk through the valley of the shadow of death” (Psalm 23) – is the call to action and action itself, in its many forms, to work for global security, common security, human security in order to create a sustained world peace in which all people can live in their diverse cultures to their full potential.This entails an end to “unrestricted and undirected growth through science and technology”, an end to “perpetual economic growth.” – mindless production and consumption.(Japanese people have recently been criticized by their government for not consuming enough).

    One of the primary keys to peace is the amelioration of suffering in the developing world, the elimination of poverty, hunger, famine, environmental degradation, illness with AIDS emerging as a major threat.These issues can perhaps be attributed, in part, to the legacy of colonialism, playing some part in the root causes of the tribal, ethnic and civil strife.It is no secret that the countries of the developing world are of interest to the major world powers – the G-8(and before them the colonial powers) only in relation to their own economic gain.It is only where their financial interests are at stake will the powerful nations intervene – a prime example is the Gulf War when the oil supplies were endangered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

    We recently celebrated the 100th Anniversary of the 1899 Hague Appeal for Peace Conference.The 1899 Conference is perhaps an appropriate defining point to measure how far we have come on the road to peace; to look for significant milestones that suggest we may be having some success in our struggle for a culture of peace; and signposts that will provide us with direction on the path to a peaceful future.

    By the time of the first Hague Conference there were over four hundred peace societies – the growth, development, sophistication of which, since then, I see as the most significant and most important progression on the road to peace.One hundred years later Cora Weiss, President of 1999 Hague Appeal for Peace managed to bring to The Hague, over 8,000 people from around the globe, representing many different organizations concerned with the need, and working in different areas, for peace.This is the future of civil society.

    The 1899 Hague Peace Conference emerged at the end – and because of – a war-torn century- at that time the worst in history.There are several views on the reason for the meeting in the Hague in 1899 and I think two of them, inconsistent though they are, provide a telling argument for the complexities in which we find ourselves, with regard to the peoples-of-the-world’s longing for peace.

    One view, expressed by Judge Weeramantry, a highly regarded former judge, and Vice-President, of the International Court of Justice, is that the world was sickened by the fact that during the 19th Century, the horrors of war had caused human suffering on a scale at that time unprecedented in history: new levels of efficiency had been achieved “in the regimentation of resources for the slaughter of enemy populations.”In response to the outcry and call for peace, the Czar of Russia, according to Judge Weeramantry, took the initiative, and the Great Powers met in The Hague and(I’ll quote him) “made plans to lead humanity to a golden future free of the scourge of war [and] went further along the path to establishing a machinery for global justice than any other conference in recorded history.”However, we have to acknowledge the abysmal failure of this dream with over eight-and-a-half million people killed less than twenty years later. (Weeramantry, 10)

    Another view, and equally valid, voiced by Geoffrey Robertson, a well respected international lawyer and Queen’s Counsel, specializing in human rights, is that the Great Powers met in The Hague in 1899 and 1907, and prior to that in St. Petersburg, with the aim of reducing “the cost of killing soldiers in wars.”The major powers, he says, met out of concern about the cost of new weaponry, and agreed on limits “on the development of poison gases and explosive ‘dum-dum bullets.”According to him, these rules “came to be dressed up in the language of humanity… due to the influence of the International Committee of the Red Cross”.However, the intention of the founder of the Red Cross, who was “horrified by the carnage left on the European battlefields”, according to Robertson, was, not to end war, but merely “to make these wars more humane for injured soldiers and prisoners.” (Robertson, 15).

    This marked the emergence of International Humanitarian Law which is one of the milestones on the road to a culture of peace.Humanitarian law, though, is war law – it imposes legal restraints on the warrior, the methods of killing.The modern rules governing the conduct of warriors which include rules on who and what can be targeted,”are now collected in the four Geneva Conventions.”However, according to Robertson “after a century of arms control efforts, commencing in 1899 with a peace conference in The Hague at which twenty-six nations debated whether to use dum-dum bullets, ends with 50 million Kalashnikov rifles in circulation and with no international rule preventing the use – let alone the development – of nuclear weapons.” (Robertson, 173, 167).

    The development of International Law, even though still in its formative stages and relying “upon equity, ethics, and the moral sense of mankind to nourish its developing principles,” can be considered a series of milestones or perhaps paving stones – because they create a legal ground, a code of conduct – on the road to peace.However, the problem with International Law is that it develops after the fact, after the atrocity, after the war, and we are reaching the point where such retrospective remedies become increasingly futile. (Weeramantry, 5)

    Most – if not all (perhaps all) – of the decisive actions and the creation of major global institutions concerned with freedom, justice and human dignity – peace – have arisen – like the phoenix – from the ashes of war, of death, of abominable acts of destruction.The League of Nations and the International Court of Justice emerged as a response to the horrors of the First World War. These two institutions, however, did not concern themselves with human dignity per se, for the League of Nations was created for developing and keeping peace between states. The International Court Justice has jurisdiction only over consenting states party to the Statute of the ICJ.Individuals had to wait for another war before their interests, the interests of the members of civil society were taken into account.

    Their time came with the birth of the United Nations – the response to the carnage of the Second World War and it is important to state, the evils, the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. This was in the minds of the drafters – and resonates in – the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.This is tremendous victory- another milestone – for human dignity, for global security, for a culture of peace.One of the Charter’s primary purposes-“respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” – owes its prominent position to “last-minute pressure” from American non-governmental organizations on the American officials at the meetings in San Francisco in June, 1945. (Robertson, 32)

    Unfortunately for peace and human security, the power in the United Nations was – and is – vested in the victors of World War Two who became the five permanent members of the Security Council – the P-5 they are called – each with the power of veto.They are also the nuclear powers, and regrettably, hold the world in some kind of hostage.

    Another development from the Second World War – is The Nuremberg Charter, the response to the absolute horror at the unbelievably evil crimes of Hitler.This was another momentous step forward – another milestone – on the road to peace.Though there were earlier laws, piracy and anti-slavery which could be considered “crimes against humanity”, Nuremberg was the huge step forward for International Law.It changed, clarified and developed the concept of “crimes against humanity.”For the first time individual rights took precedence over sovereign rights and individuals who committed crimes against humanity on behalf of the states they represented were deemed responsible for the crime.Moreover, these states themselves were under a continuing obligation to institute legal proceedings and punish them for their crimes.If they failed to do so another state or the international community had the right to bring them to justice.

    Following the Nuremberg Judgements – almost fifty years later, however – two Criminal Courts were established on an ad hoc basis to punish crimes against humanity: the Hague Tribunal to prosecute the crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia and the Arusha Tribunal for crimes committed in Rwanda.And recently, in Rome, a treaty was drafted and up for ratification which will establish a permanent International Criminal Court.These must be seen as victories for peace – as milestones. However, it must be emphasized that crimes against humanity have been selectively punished according to the will of the United Nations Security Council.None of the victors have been put on trial for the razing, the carpet bombing, of Dresden and Berlin; for the firebombing of Tokyo, for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to say nothing of crimes against humanity committed in Vietnam.

    Moreover, the Rwanda massacre and the East Timor devastation could have been prevented but for UN Security Council’s -and above all the United States’ refusal to act.You will recall Stephen Lewis’s piercing indictment of U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright).My dream is that someday justice will be elevated to a realm above state interest, because to the detriment of justice, International Law is subservient to states parties to the Treaty; and the United Nations is a convenient tool, governed by the power relations in the Security Council.

    The latest victory for justice and human dignity was the Pinochet judgement which brought the crimes against humanity out of the zone of war and into the realm of “peace” – “peace” in the sense that it was not conflict between states. This would never have happened if, according to Robertson, Pinochet had decided to take tea with Henry Kissinger rather than Margaret Thatcher because the United States, which is a friend of Chile, would have issued Pinochet with a “suggestion for immunity”.In Robertston’s view credit it due to the British Government which allowed the law to take its course and to the English judges who, to quote him, “with an almost touching naiveté, took the Torture Convention to mean what it said.” [“With uncanny, uncynical decency, they proceeded to hoist the old torturer on his own petard”] (Robertson, 396,397)

    These are some of the milestones and signposts on the road to peace. But it seems to me that is atrocious and unjust that human beings are forced to carve their steps for peace out of, in reaction to acts of war and violence. There has to be some way to plant the seeds of a humane, just world in healthy soil rather than in the killing fields.

    Many or most of the actions to create a just world order, a culture of peace – and this is my most important point – a signpost – have come about because of the involvement and actions of civil society, of dedicated individual and groups.

    One of the most hopeful signs towards a culture of peace is the rapid growth of civil movements, of people and groups who are determined – to paraphrase a section of an Amnesty International call to action – to not “be part of the killing silence.”And another, for which we give thanks, is the accelerated development and expansion of communications technology, creating global networks which link non-governmental organizations around the world.Amnesty International, for example, has over one million members world-wide and there are 900 other non-governmental organizations defending and promoting human rights and hundreds and hundreds of others focusing in others facets of peace and justice, nuclear abolition, anti-war, health, education, environment, development and so on.

    A system parallel to the United Nations has grown up outside, alongside and synchronous with it – and often slightly ahead because these non-governmental organizations are not governed by power and politics. Their concern is respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.It is this moral force, which perhaps idealistically and naively, takes seriously the moral and ethical imperatives of the United Nations Charter and brings pressure to bear on the member states to act in the spirit of the Charter and to live up to their obligations under the various treaties, signed by them under the auspices of the United Nations.

    These non-governmental organizations are host to a wealth of knowledge, expertize, experience, energy and a principled value-oriented, ethical commitment.Their members come from many walks of life – some are lawyers, medical doctors, academic experts, former military officials, diplomats, weapons scientists and arms control negotiators; and religious and spiritual leaders who remind us of the dignity of the human, and of our responsibility for all life.

    Non-governmental organizations have created powerful global networks for information gathering and dissemination which have proven to be valuable to governments. Civil society has always played an important role in fact-finding, in the verification of information through the intelligence networks they have built.Citizen’s groups also focus attention on the issues and mobilize public opinion.

    When we look to past successes in our struggle for a humane world, the actions of members of civil society have played an immense role in the development of International Law.One of the most significant was the abolition of slavery; another was the concern articulated by the founder of the International Red Cross and supported by the outcry from the four hundred peace societies referred to earlier, which gave birth humanitarian law, albeit for war; there were the American non-governmental organizations (American Jewish Congress and the NAACP) whose pressure attained the primacy of “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” in the UN Charter.And Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch can take credit for most of the achievements in human rights law.

    The most significant action taken by civil society – in that it broke new ground by achieving its goal by linking with government- is the World Court Project.This project was initiated by a small group of individuals, who addressed themselves to the question of how to have the International Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction is based on consent, give an opinion on whether or not nuclear weapons, or the threat of nuclear weapons constitute a threat to humanity, a crime against humanity.This became a world-wide citizen movement which sought partnership with the World Health Organization and then because the Court refused the World Health Organization jurisdiction, with the government of Costa Rica.

    Building on a global coalition of citizens, the Canadian government, in 1997, forged a civil society/government partnership, to ban landmines which resulted in the Ottawa Process, a Landmines Treaty which the US, China and Russia, all UN Security Council members have, so far, refused to sign.

    The recent Treaty to establish an International Criminal Court is another important success-story for civil society and a step towards a culture of peace.Pressure from citizen groups, concerned with human rights, on their governments around the world resulted in its creation in Rome in 1998.

    Citizens protests against globalization at the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle and again recently in Washington at the World Bank/International Monetary Fund meetings are perhaps harbingers of change to address the global economic disparities caused by the unregulated activity of multinational corporations and the global currency markets.

    The nuclear abolition movement is undergoing a renaissance now that the Cold War is over, a Second Nuclear Age has set in, and new nuclear dangers are threatening the peace and security of the people of the world.The Canadian government, reacting to pressure from citizens’ groups, has in a small way attempted to create a civil society government partnership by establishing annual NGO/government consultations on the nuclear issue.It also included two NGO representatives on its delegation to the 2000 NPT Review Conference.At the conference Canada proposed the participation of accredited NGOs expert in this field.However, this was not acceptable to the majority of states.All that came out of the proposal was agreement that one formal meeting will be held between delegates and NGOs at which NGOs would make presentations to the delegates.This was mere formalization of a process that was already taking place.

    The United Nations conferences – Habitat, The Earth Summit, Women’s Conference in Beijing – which though excluding citizens from decision-making forum, gave the people the opportunity to mass in large numbers, network, create coalitions, bring the issues to the attention of the world’s public and create the ground for change in the interest of human beings.If Kofi Annan’s proposal for a Conference on Nuclear Dangers becomes a reality, then we will have the opportunity again to carve out a path towards a global peace.

    To me, the growth of civil movements, and evidence that they are going on the offensive, that their power is growing and they are demanding action and enforcement, is the most significant process, the most significant signpost directing us to the future – in the movement towards a culture for peace.

    We, the people, have to accept that we are responsible for all life, to create a world worth living in. We cannot trust our destiny to government nor can we trust diplomatic solutions.They are not just – they are all about sovereign power relations, statecraft.International Law is dependent on the will of states and subservient to States interests.An example of this is one I spoke about with regard to Pinochet’s bad decision to travel to England for his health problems, rather than the United States which would not have allowed the law to take its course. It is some comfort that the courts of Chile have stripped him of his immunity.Future perpetrators of crimes against humanity will perhaps hesitate, and current ones will perhaps tremble a little.

    I was outraged when I read that the US signed the 1977 Geneva Protocols on Genocide with a reservation that this did not apply to nuclear weapons; I feel angry that US will not sign the Landmines Treaty because it wants to continue to use them and their cluster bombs; and that China will not sign the Treaty to the International Criminal Court because of, it is suspected, its massacre in Tianamen Square.The U.S. will not sign it because it fears that its soldiers will be indicted.Recently, France, in an outright violation of justice for humanity, signed the International Criminal Court Convention with a reservation which will allow it to commit nuclear genocide with impunity.

    The U.S. prepares itself for a Third World War with tremendous investments in high-technological super weapons and the weaponization of space, and threatens world peace and stability with its proposed National Missile Defence System and potential abrogation of the ABM Treaty, its failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the resurgence of its nuclear doctrine as strategic to its defence policy and to NATO policy which has caused Russia to give new importance to nuclear weapons.All these actions have the potential to start a new arms race.

    There are some countersigns at the political and diplomatic levels – in the service of peace – for example, there is more emphasis on preventative diplomacy and conflict resolution; the UN has a peacekeeping force which, however, is merely operative to keep the peace once the mechanisms are established.Some governments, to name Canada for one, in the person of its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, are attempting to affect a transformation from the military security concept to one of human security and to concern themselves with issues of the effects of war on children, on women and children in armed conflict, child soldiers, landmines and so on.However, I do not think that they are attempting to ameliorate, in a real way, global economic disparities, poverty, famine, health, education, environmental degradation which perhaps would address the root causes of war.

    The real signs for peace come from civil society, to the thousands of activities undertaken in the striving for peace – the paving stones – of hundreds of thousands of individuals around the world. In political circles these would be called Track II activities – you, the teachers of global education, for example, imparting tools for a sustainable future, peace education, conflict resolution and so on – grounding our young people in ethically based knowledge and practices.There is also a minor revolution taking place in alternate technologies, small scale economic and development activities, though these are in no way a counterweight to the massive technological developments.

    These activities are taking place in the shadow of death, because the peace we are attempting to create today is more the outcome of fear of our demise from either ecological devastation or from death from weapons of mass destruction.Peace comes to be a mandatory goal, the only possible route for the continued existence of the human species.These thousands of civil initiatives may be the ones that will help us turn back from the wrong road we have taken – to recover an image of human good, of, borrowing from Murray Bookchin, “complementarity” in Nature, “complementarity” in relations between peoples, respect for “Other.”

    There are two events which haunt me and which I believe in the long run provide a key to a more humane, a more just, a peaceful world.The first one is Charter 77.Charter 77 was not only a document, but also a human rights movement, in communist Czechoslovakia.In 1975 Czechoslovakia signed the Helsinki Articles, two Covenants on Human Rights.The signatories – initially three, Vaclav Havel, Jan Patocka and Jiri Hajek -announced that they would Live in Truth, that is to say live as though the government of Czechoslovakia honoured the treaty it had signed.In actual fact the Treaty was specifically non-binding so that the United States could then sign it without Senate consent, and also because it suited Russia’s purposes.Nevertheless, the signatories took this declaration at its face value, and acted as though the state of Czechoslovakia was honouring the treaty.Their action, though politically and physically dangerous (in Jan Patocka died after an extremely gruelling interrogation) proved to be extremely powerful in gaining international attention, in gathering international supporters, who pressured governments and ultimately pressure was applied on Czechoslovakia.

    Fifteen years later, in 1992, Vaclav Havel as elected President of a democratic Czechoslovakia, in an address to the World Economic Forum, said that”Communism was not defeated by military force, but by life, by the human spirit, by conscience, by the resistance of Being and man to manipulation… This important message to the human race is coming at the 11th hour.”

    The other event I referred to earlier, was the British judges who naively accepted that the Torture Convention meant what it said.

    It is the people who have the moral authority, the moral courage, and the naiveté perhaps, the idealism – us – who have the greatest chance of creating a culture of peace.To quote Mahatma Gandhi: “We must be the change we wish to see in the world.”

    Thank you very much.

    Jennifer Allen Simons, Ph.D.
    The Simons Foundation
    August 11th, 2000

  • China’s Concern over National Missile Defence

    Understanding Ballistic Missile Defence

    Ballistic missile defence has drawn heated debate in the international community in the recent years. On the one hand, the US has made it a national policy to develop a limited ballistic missile defence program, with a key decision to be made this year regarding whether to deploy the system. On the other hand, the US missile defence build-up has been much criticised by other countries. It is often argued that missile defence would, if unchecked, tilt the balance of power and therefore affect the international political and security order.

    To be honest, there is indeed a genuine concern over the proliferation of ballistic missiles and other types of delivery means. Coupled with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missile proliferation presents a major challenge to international security and stability. This was manifested during the second Gulf War of 1991, when Scuds fired against Saudi Arabia and Israel took on great psychological importance. Ever since then, more and longer-range missile flight tests, in South Asia and Northeast Asia, have been reported.[1] While the countries concerned may have quite reasonable grounds to acquire missiles for their defensive purposes, such a trend of proliferation does not bode well for global as well as regional stability.

    Ballistic missile proliferation has thus raised concern among states. There have been three kinds of responses. First, denying the intention of those who would seek such delivery vehicles. This would require the creation of a more secure environment in order to reduce the incentive to acquire them. Second, denying the missile-related technology available through transfer, if denial of intention fails to work. Third, establishing a certain level of ballistic missile defence as a protection against incidental and/or unauthorised attack, or a limited intentional attack with ballistic missiles.

    In this context, it is not impossible to understand the need for a limited missile defence, especially for a global power as the United States, which has vast overseas presence and interests, often in turn a reason to invite attack.

    In fact, the US has never given up its attempt to build various missile defence systems. The US set out to build sentinel antiballistic-missile program in 1967 against China’s nascent nuclear deterrent when it first came into being.[2] For the last two decades, the US government has persistently pursued missile defence. The Reagan Administration launched its Strategic Defense Initiative, a land- and space-based multi-layer missile defence system which was never successfully developed. The Bush Administration converted the Star War dream into Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS). The Clinton Administration has decided to continue ballistic missile defence, with components of both National Missile Defence (NMD) and Theatre Missile Defence (TMD).

    This paper will address China’s position on missile non-proliferation regime, and its concern on National Missile Defence. It is suggested that the US and China should address their respective security concerns and seek a win-win solution in missile non-proliferation and missile defence issues.

    China and Missile Non-proliferation Regime

    Over the last decade, China has been increasingly exposed to a missile-proliferation-prone peripheral environment. Key neighbouring states either have a formidable missile arsenal, a significant missile programme, a fast developing missile capability or an alliance with a nuclear superpower. As such, missile proliferation has clearly affected China’s international environment.

    Therefore, the PRC has taken a series of steps addressing this problem through joining international missile non-proliferation efforts. It has been cautious concerning the transfer of missiles, adopting strict and effective controls over the export of missiles and related technology. Beijing has committed to missile non-proliferation and kept its obligation.[3]

    In February 1992, China committed to observing the then guidelines and parameters of Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).[4] With the enhanced dialogue which emerged between China and the US in the missile area, the two countries signed a joint statement in October 1996, reaffirming China’s promise and obligation of not exporting ground-to-ground missiles inherently capable of reaching a range of 300 kilometres with a payload of 500 kilograms.[5]

    Although China has not joined the MTCR’s formulation and revision, it has signalled that it would study the feasibility of joining the regime. This came as a result of the Jiang-Clinton Beijing summit of 1998, reflecting their effort to cultivate a constructive partnership. It is understood that China has conditioned its joining the MTCR on the question of the US arms sales to Taiwan, especially US TMD development and deployment in this part of the world.

    The two countries were engaging on this matter until their talks on non-proliferation, arms control and international security were, unfortunately, suspended in the aftermath of NATO’s bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999. Their arms control talk is not resumed till July 2000, following their security consultation in Beijing in February.

    NMD Undermining Russia and China’s Security

    On 17 and 18 March 1999 respectively, the US Senate and House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved National Missile Defence System legislation, stating “That it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defence”.[6] This has evoked tremendous repercussions around the world, drawing negative responses from all other nuclear weapons states and even US allies in NATO.[7]

    According to the NMD plan, the US will deploy 100 interceptors in Alaska in its first configuration. Assuming a 1 in 4 rate of interception, the US could at most hit 25 incoming missiles, a more than sufficient capability to take care of the alleged threat from those “rogue” states’ said to be developing long-range ballistic missiles with which to target America. At later stages, the US would deploy further kinetic kill vehicles in North Dakoda in order to provide nationwide missiles defence.

    The US has stated clearly that China has not figured in its NMD calculations. However, China views the situation differently and remains strongly suspicious of the US intentions in terms of NMD development. From China’s perspective, it is untenable that the US would spend 60-100 billion dollars on a system which has only “rogue” states in mind.

    Such capability of intercontinental strike by ballistic missile owned by “rogue” states does not yet exist. Excluding the P5, only Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, DPRK and Iran are currently believed to have medium-range missiles with ranges above 1,000km. Only four of these states, India, Pakistan, DPRK and Iran, may also have active programmes to develop intermediate-range missiles with ranges of over 3,000km.[8] It is highly unlikely that any of them will acquire an ICBM capability within a decade or so. The CIA’s classified 1998 Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Missile Development recognised that the ICBM threat to the United States from so-called rogue states is unlikely to materialise before 2010, with the possible exception of DPRK.[9]

    Only Russia and China currently have the capability to hit the United States with nuclear warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, this is not a new phenomenon. Both the US and Russia have maintained their nuclear arsenals of thousands of deployed nuclear weapons. Their nuclear arsenals are at basically comparable levels in terms of quality and quantity. It is the ABM Treaty signed in 1972 that has prevented the US and the former Soviet Union from embarking on unlimited strategic arms race.

    The ABM Treaty does allow the US and the former Soviet Union (now Russia as its sole legitimate successor) to deploy limited anti-strategic ballistic missiles capability for the sake of incidental and/or unauthorised launches. It has doubly served strategic stability. First, for limited nuclear attack due to incidental/unauthorised launch, it permits limited capability to intercept. Second, for an all-out nuclear attack and counterattack, it assures the rivals of their mutual destruction. Indeed, the Treaty has helped dissuade the two nuclear weapons superpowers from further escalating their strategic offensive build-up.

    With Russia’s ongoing social and economic disruption, its military capability has been affected significantly. In the context of strategic offence-defence relationship, Russia is being pressed three-fold. First, a significant amount of Russia’s strategic force is ageing and has to be phased out. Therefore, Russia needs deep bilateral nuclear weapons reductions with the US, but it refuses to do this at the expense of revising ABM, permitting the change of balance of power in favour of the US. Second, START II would eliminate Russia’s land-based MIRVs. At a time of the US rhetoric of abrogating ABM anyway, the Russia has to reconsider the necessity to disarm its MIRVed weapons. Third, Russia’s missile defence, permitted under ABM, is eroding as its early warning satellite system can no longer provide full coverage.[10]

    As such the world is experiencing a double danger. Russia cannot properly execute its launch-on-warning of strategic force as it is unable to fully track missile launch and flight. Russia’s refusal to cut its nuclear force, when it has to cut it, also creates difficulty in nuclear disarmament. However, the latter issue is a result of the US missile defence build-up in violation of ABM Treaty.

    Consequently, the US NMD build-up will be harmful to US-Russia relations. It presses Russia to be hesitant in continuing strategic nuclear disarmament, and may force Moscow to strengthen its offensive capability. By revising or even abandoning the ABM Treaty, the US will seek absolute security regardless its negative effect on the security of other countries.

    From China’s perspective, the US national missile defence would cause even worse strategic relations between Beijing and Washington. Though China has not publicly made its nuclear capability transparent, its CSS-4 ICBM force, capable of reaching the US with a range of 13,000 kilometres, is largely believed by the Western strategic analysts to number around 20.[11]

    China’s concern over the US national missile defence in violation of ABM has been expressed through various channels many times.[12] Primarily China is concerned about two issues. One is that the NMD will destabilise the world order, and harm the international relations. The other is that NMD will undermine China’s strategic deterrence, undermining China’s confidence in its strategic retaliatory capability.

    A limited anti-ballistic missile capability, as allowed by the existing ABM Treaty, would be enough to defend the strategic assets of the US against potential missile threats from outside the P5. Indeed the one-site base of anti-ballistic missile deployment under ABM framework cannot immunise the whole US from being hit. It is exactly this reason that has given Russia (as well as other nuclear weapons states) a confidence that they retain a credible nuclear deterrence vis-à-vis the US. Theoretically, part of the US would thus be exposed to some missile threat from “rogue” states. However, either that threat has been too remote, or the overwhelming strength of the US in both nuclear and conventional weapons will be powerful enough to deter potential adversaries from initiating hostilities.

    Also the envisaged NMD cannot stop an all-out Russian nuclear attack, considering the thousands of strategic weapons at Russia’s disposal. Therefore, Beijing can only take the view that US NMD has been designed to effectively neutralise China’s strategic deterrence.

    Given the reported level of China’s full-range ICBM force (CSS-4), the NMD plans requiring ABM revision would (if successfully implemented as advertised) compromise China’s strategic capability in two respects. Geographically, it will protect the whole US from being deterred. Numerically, even interceptors deployed on a single site may be enough to knock out all Chinese CSS-4s.[13] Hence China’s national security interest is greatly endangered.

    To hold the US credibly deterred is just to reciprocate, to a much lower extent, what the US has long done against China during the nuclear age. In fact, it was US nuclear threats to PRC on a number of occasions that prompted Beijing to start its nuclear weapons programme.[14]

    Though the US has the most formidable nuclear arsenal and most powerful and sophisticated conventional arsenal, it retains the option of a first-strike with nuclear weapons as its deterrence policy. Now the US would even revise or abolish the ABM which assures nuclear weapons states of their mutual security.

    The PRC has one of the smallest nuclear arsenals and least advanced conventional weaponry among all the nuclear weapons states, but it still adopts a nuclear no-first-use policy, and a nuclear no-use policy against non-nuclear weapons states or nuclear weapons free zones.

    The PRC’s national security thus rests with what ABM provides. The US indeed can develop and deploy anti-strategic weapons capability, as permitted by the ABM, in order to gain certain sense of security against incidental and/or unauthorised attack by nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, it ought to take into account the common security of all nuclear weapons states. When the US improves its own security at a time of ballistic missile proliferation, it should mind not to undermine the national security of others. Indeed there is an internationally acceptable limit that the US can pursue, i.e. developing its NMD capability in compliance with the Treaty.

    Addressing China’s Concern

    The US can argue that it is its sovereign rights to develop and deploy NMD beyond ABM Treaty. However, if the US were to go ahead regardless of the other states, it certainly would not create a win-win situation. Indeed, it would be counterproductive in terms of US interests.

    Some in the U.S. have been indifferent of the negative security impact the revision of AMB would bring upon other states. In this theory the US shall at most care to some extent Russia’s concern. As ABM involves the business between US and Russia, there seems no need to address China’s concern.

    The US shall understand the ABM is both a balancer of power between US and Russia, and, more fundamentally, a cornerstone of global security. In the latter context, China’s security is affected by the standing of ABM. The PRC has expressed its interest in multilateralising ABM, in the hope of expanding ABM membership.[15] This reflects Beijing’s interest in maintaining ABM by raising the stake of altering a multilateral treaty. Being a member of the ABM, Beijing would be situated in a better strategic position to enhance world stability.

    There have thus far been two interception tests of NMD systems. The first was carried out on 2 October 1999 and was found to have flaws.[16] The second test on 18 January 2000 was a complete failure due to a “plumbing leak”.[17] The US has self-imposed a deadline for making a decision on NMD deployment in June/July, after one more test. Even though future tests could be more or less “successful”, it would be still quite irresponsible to make a decision to go ahead.[18] It will be in neither America’s ultimate interest, nor the interest of the rest of the world.

    If the US insists on hurting the national interests of Russia and medium nuclear weapons states, it is hard to see how it will be possible to gather international support for non-proliferation initiatives in other fronts. The Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FissBan) is an obvious example. Were the US to break the ABM Treaty, medium nuclear weapons states would be unlikely to give up their option of retaining the right to re-open production of fissile materials for weapons purposes, if they feel their deterrence is eroded.

    It should also be pointed out that there are ample means to defeat a missile defence.[19] Various means such as submunitions, high as well as low altitude countermeasures, balloon decoys, chaff and missile fragment decoys can all be considered. MIRVing and ASAT approaches might also be tempting. It goes without saying that if a state is able to independently develop a strategic missile capability, it should also be able to develop a capability to cost-effectively defeat missile defence.[20]

    Some argue that there is a growing threat from China as it is modernising its strategic forces. Looking at the CSS-4 force developed and China’s sea-based deterrence, one can hardly reach this conclusion. A land-based strategic force of about two dozens of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and a very small submarine-based missile force, is hardly any match for those of the United States.

    As China intends to adopt a no-first-use strategy, it serves China’s interest to keep a moderate force. However, China has a need to modernise its force as its defensive policy requires to do so, and as all other countries are doing the same. This is especially true at an age of precision-guided weaponry. An ICBM force of some two dozens of missile does not justify the US to revise or abolish ABM Treaty. Quite to the opposite, China’s moderate strategic force and moderate modernisation play a key role in assuring the US adequate security, which serves a stabilising role in terms of China-US relations, and world security.

    In sum, the United States does have legitimate concern over missile proliferation. That concern is shared by Chinese side. Major powers of the world, along with other countries, should work together to address such international problems, and to find solutions which serve both international stability and their respective national interests. Moving along the lines provided for by the ABM Treaty provides such a way forward. On the contrary, going ahead with damaging ABM and other countries’ interests can only be counterproductive.

     

    * Dingli Shen is a professor and Deputy Director of Fudan University’s Centre for American Studies, as well as Deputy Director of University Committee of Research and Development. He co-founded and directs China’s first university-based Program on Arms Control and Regional Security at Fudan. The views presented in this chapter are purely of his own. This piece is adopted and updated from a longer version, “BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE AND CHINA’S NATIONAL SECURITY”, Jane’s Special Report, May 2000.

    [1] For instance, India has tested Agni and Prithvi, and Pakistan has tested Ghauri ballistic missiles a number of times in the 1990s. DPRK is alleged to have developed and tested No-dong and Taepo-dong intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Reportedly some other countries are developing their ballistic missile capabilities.
    [2] Edward N. Luttwak, “Clinton’s Missile Defense Goes Way Off Its Strategic Target”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 14, 2000, p.2.
    [3] “China’s National Defence”, Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, July 1998.
    [4] MTCR was set up in April 1987, and modified in July 1993 to target missiles capable of delivering any type of weapons of mass destruction.
    [5] “Joint United States-People’s Republic of China Statement on Missile Proliferation”, Washington, D.C., 4 October 1994.
    [6] The House version, sponsored by Curt Weldon (R-PA), was a bill of one-sentence as quoted in the text.
    [7] Joseph Fitchett, “Washington’s Pursuit of Missile Defense Drives Wedge in NATO”, International Harold Tribune, 15 February 2000, p.5.
    [8] “The Missile Threat: An Intelligence Assessment”, Issue Brief (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 10 February 2000.
    [9] Craig Cerniello, “CIA Holds to Assessment of Ballistic Missile Threat to US”, Arms Control Today, October 1998, p.24.
    [10] David Hoffman, “Russia’s Missile Defense Eroding: Gaps in Early-Warning Satellite Coverage Raise Risk of Launch Error”, Washington Post, 10 February 1999, p.A1.
    [11] CIA put the number as about 20, see Craig Cerniello, “CIA Holds to Assessment of Ballistic Missile Threat to US”, Arms Control Today, October 1998, p.24, and, SIPRI Yearbook 1999: Armament, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999), p.555; IISS estimated it as 15-20, see The Military Balance 1999-2000 (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999), p.186. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimated the number in 1993 as 4, see Robert S. Norris, Andrew S. Burrows and Richard W. Fieldhouse, Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume 4: Britain, French, and Chinese Nuclear Weapons (Westview Press: Boulder, 1994), p.11.
    [12] For instance, Sha Zhukang, “International Disarmament on A Crossroad”, World Affairs (Beijing), February 2000, p.17; Gao Junmin and Lü Dehong, “A Dangerous Move”, PLA Daily, 24 January 1999, p.4.
    [13] Assuming China has 20 CSS-4s, the 100 interceptors deployed on a single ABM site will be more than enough to hit all of them under a 1 in 4 interception ratio.
    [14] See, Dingli Shen, “The Current Status of Chinese Nuclear Forces and Nuclear Policies”, Princeton University/Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies Report No. 247, February 1990; McGeorge Bundy, Danger and Survival: Choices about the Bomb in the First Fifty Years (Random House: New York, 1988).
    [15] See luncheon speech of Ambassador Shu Zhukang at Seventh Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference: Repairing the Regime, 11-12 January 1999, Washington, D.C.
    [16] James Glanz, “Flaws Found In Missile Test That U.S. Saw As A Success”, New York Times, 14 January 2000, p.1.
    [17] Robert Suro, “Missile Defense System Fails Test”, Washington Post, 19 January 2000, p.1; Bradley Graham, “Plumbing Leak Foiled Anti-Missile Test”, Washington Post, 8 February 2000, p.A1.
    [18] However, Richard Garwin has pointed out that “the proposed NMD system would have essentially zero capability against the most likely emerging threat – an ICBM from North Korea”. See, “Effectiveness of Proposed National Missile Defense Against ICBMs from North Korea”, http://www.fas.org/rlg/990317-nmd.htm.
    [19] See description in Joseph Cirincione and Frank von Hippel ed., The Last 15 Minutes: Ballistic Missile Defense in Perspective (Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Danger: Washington, D.C, 1996); Countermeasures: A Technical Evaluation of the Operational Effectiveness of the Planned US National Missile Defense System (Union of Concerned Scientists and MIT Security Studies Program), April 2000.
    [20] See cost analysis in Dingli Shen, “Security Issues Between China and the United States”, IFRI Report (Institut Fran¹ais des Relations Internationales, Paris), to be published.

    Paper presented at the International Conference on “Challenges for Science and Engineering in the 21st Century” Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-18, 2000, Session D3

  • It’s Time to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat

    The US and Russia have made progress in reducing nuclear weapons from their Cold War highs, but we still have a long way to go. There remain some 35,000 weapons in the world, and 4,500 of these are on “hair-trigger” alert.

    If a single nuclear weapon were accidentally launched, it could destroy a city but that’s not all. With current launch-on-warning doctrines, an accidental launch could end up in a full-fledged nuclear war. This would mean the end of civilization and everything we value – just like that. The men and women in charge of these weapons could make a mistake, computers or sensors could make a mistake – and just like that our beautiful world could be obliterated. We can’t let that happen.

    Along with Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Marian Wright Edelman, Mohammad Ali, Harrison Ford, and many others, I have signed an Appeal to World Leaders to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity. This Appeal calls for some sensible steps, such as de-alerting nuclear weapons. Just this step alone would make the world and all of us much safer from the threat of an accidental nuclear war while we pursue a world free of nuclear weapons.

    President Clinton recently said, “As we enter this new millennium, we should all commit ourselves anew to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.” I think the American people need to encourage the President and our representatives in Congress to assert US leadership in achieving such a world. We owe it not only to ourselves, but to our children, grandchildren and all future generations.

    But what should we do?

    First, the Russians have proposed cutting the number of US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons down to 1,000 to 1,500 each. We have responded by saying that we are only prepared to go to 2,000 to 2,500 weapons. But why? Isn’t it in the security interests of the American people to decrease the Russian nuclear arsenal as much as possible? We should move immediately to the lowest number of nuclear weapons to which the Russians will agree.

    Second, we should be upholding the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty instead of seeking to amend it. By limiting the number of defensive interceptor missiles, as the ABM Treaty does, we prevent a return to an offensive nuclear arms race. An effective missile defense system may work in the movies, but experts say it has very little chance of working or of not being overcome by decoys in real life. I certainly wouldn’t bet the security of my children’s future on building an expensive missile defense system that would violate the long-standing ABM Treaty.

    Third, we should declare a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons. There is no conceivable reason for attacking first with nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction and that should be our policy.

    Fourth, we should be engaging in good faith negotiations with Russia and the other nuclear weapons states to achieve a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. That’s what we promised in the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recently reaffirmed at the 2000 Review Conference for this Treaty. If we want the non-nuclear weapons states to keep their part of the non-proliferation bargain and not develop nuclear weapons, we’d better keep our part of the bargain.

    When President Clinton goes to Moscow in early June to meet with President Putin, I’d like to see him come back with an agreement to dramatically reduce nuclear dangers by taking our respective nuclear arsenals off “hair-trigger” alert, by re-affirming the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, by agreeing on policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons, and by beginning negotiations in good faith on an international treaty for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons under strict and effective international control. If Presidents Clinton and Putin would take these steps, they would be real heroes of our time. And we could use some real life heroes.

     

  • The Irrationality of Deterrence: A Modern Zen Koan

    “The sound of one finger pressing the button is the sound of a deeper silence, brought about by unrelenting apathy”

    What is the sound of one hand clapping? What is the sound of one finger pressing the button? Surely the concept of deterrence is more enigmatic and perplexing than a Zen Koan!

    The concept of deterrence, which underlies the nuclear weapons policies of the United States and other nuclear weapons states, presupposes human rationality in all cases. It is based upon the proposition that a rational person will not attack you if he understands that his country will be subject to unacceptable damage by retaliation.

    What rational person would want his country to be exposed to unacceptable damage? Perhaps one who miscalculates. A rational person could believe that he could take action X, and that would not be sufficient for you to retaliate. Saddam Hussein, for example, believed that he could invade Kuwait without retaliation from the United States. He miscalculated, in part because he had been misled by the American Ambassador to Iraq who informed him that the US would not retaliate. Misinformation, misunderstanding, or misconstruing information could lead a rational person to miscalculate. We don’t always get our information straight, and we seldom have all of the facts.

    Deterrence is a Fool’s Game

    Even more detrimental to the theory of deterrence is irrationality. Can anyone seriously believe that humans always act rationally? Of course not. We are creatures who are affected by emotions and passions as well as intellect. Rationality is not to be relied upon. People do not always act in their own best interests. Examples abound. Almost everyone knows that smoking causes terrible diseases and horrible deaths, and yet hundreds of millions of people continue to smoke. We know that the stock markets are driven by passions as much as they are by rationality. The odds are against winning at the gambling tables in Las Vegas, and yet millions of people accept the odds, believing that they can win despite the odds.

    Nuclear deterrence is based on rationality — the belief that a rational leader will not attack a country with nuclear weapons for fear of retaliation. And yet, it is clearly irrational to believe that rationality will always prevail. Let me put it another way. Isn’t it irrational for a nation to rely upon deterrence, which is based upon humans always acting rationally (which they don’t), to provide for its national security? Those who champion deterrence appear rational, but in fact prove their irrationality by their unfounded faith in human rationality.

    With nuclear deterrence, the deterring country threatens to retaliate with nuclear weapons if it is attacked. What if a country is attacked by nuclear weapons, but is unable to identify the source of the attack? How does it retaliate? Obviously, it either guesses, retaliates against an innocent country, or doesn’t retaliate. So much for deterrence. What if a national leader or terrorist with a nuclear weapon believed he could attack without being identified? It doesn’t matter whether he is right or wrong. It is his belief that he is unidentifiable that matters. So much for deterrence. What if a leader of a country doesn’t care if his country is retaliated against? What if he believes he has nothing more to lose, like a nuclear-armed Hitler in his bunker? So much for deterrence!

    It takes only minimal analysis to realize that nuclear deterrence is a fool’s game. The unfortunate corollary is that those who propound nuclear deterrence are fools in wise men’s garb. The further corollary is that we have entrusted the future of the human species to a small group of fools. These include the political and military leaders, the corporate executives who support them and profit from building the weapons systems, and the academics and other intellectuals like Henry Kissinger, who provide the theoretical underpinnings for the concept of deterrence.

    The Immorality of Nuclear Weapons

    Eleven years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, we continue to live in a world in which a small number of nations rely upon the theory of deterrence to provide for their national security. In doing so, they threaten to kill tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions of innocent people by retaliation should deterrence fail. To perhaps state what should be obvious, but doesn’t appear to our leaders to be: This is highly immoral. It also sets an extremely bad example for other states, whose leaders just might be thinking: If the strongest nations in the world are continuing to rely upon nuclear weapons for their national security, shouldn’t we be doing so also? Fortunately, most leaders in most countries are concluding that they should not.

    There is only one way out of the dilemma we are in, and that is to begin immediately to abolish nuclear weapons. This happens also to be required by international law as stated in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and as decided unanimously in the 1996 opinion of the International Court of Justice: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    Morality, the law, and rationality converge in the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons. This is the greatest challenge of our time. The will of the people on this issue is being blocked by only a few leaders in a few countries. As the world’s most powerful nation, leadership should fall most naturally to the United States. Unfortunately, the policies of the United States have been driven by irrationality to the detriment of our own national security and the future of life on our planet. This is unlikely to change until the people of the United States exercise their democratic rights and demand policies that will end the nuclear threat to humanity. These include: negotiating a multilateral treaty for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons under strict and effective international control; de-alerting nuclear weapons and separating warheads from delivery vehicles; making pledges of No First Use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances; stopping all nuclear testing and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; reaffirming the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and applying strict international safeguards to all weapons-grade fissile materials and agreeing to no further production of such materials.

    A Call to Action

    The sound of one hand clapping is silence. That is the sound of most people in most places in response to the nuclear weapons policies of the nuclear weapons states. While they do not applaud these policies with both hands, they also do not raise their voices to oppose them.

    The sound of one finger pressing the button is the sound of a deeper silence, brought about by unrelenting apathy. It is the sound of the silence before a more final silence. It is an unbearable silence `for its consequences are beyond our power to repair. It is a silent death knell for humanity. We must raise our voices now with passion and commitment to prevent this pervasive silence from becoming the sound of our world.